WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL WGWAP-12 12th Meeting November 2012 Busan, Republic of Korea
REPORT OF THE WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL AT ITS TWELFTH MEETING
CONVENED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
CONTENTS
Contents 1 OPENING ...... 6 1.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ...... 6 1.2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA ...... 6 1.3 DOCUMENTS ...... 7 1.4 REPORTING PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES...... 7 2 UPDATES ...... 7 2.1 STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 7 2.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS, ESPECIALLY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT ARE INITIALLY REJECTED BY THE COMPANY ...... 8 2.3 WEBSITE ...... 9 2.4 IUCN PERSONNEL, RULES OF PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO IUCN ...... 9 2.5 OVERVIEW OF SAKHALIN ENERGY ACTIVITIES SINCE WGWAP-11 ...... 10 2.6 IWC, IWG, WCC WORKSHOP, SUZDAL ROUNDTABLE ...... 10 2.6.1 International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee ...... 10 2.6.2 Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG) of Ministry of Natural Resources ...... 11 2.6.3 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Jeju ...... 11 2.6.4 Suzdal ...... 11 2.6.5 Other ...... 12 3 REPORTS ON FIELD ACTIVITIES IN 2011 (NOT INCLUDING SOUTH PILTUN SITE SURVEY WORK) ...... 12 3.1 PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION ...... 12 3.2 DISTRIBUTION ...... 13 3.3 BENTHIC ...... 14 3.4 ACOUSTICS ...... 17 3.5 FUTURE OF JOINT PROGRAMME ...... 17 4 SATELLITE TAGGING ...... 18 4.1 ‘VARVARA’ RESULTS ...... 18 4.2 CONSIDERATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF TAGGED WHALES ...... 19 4.3 FUTURE PLANS ...... 19 5 BASIN-WIDE STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS ...... 20 5.1 PHOTOGRAPHS, GENETICS, SATELLITE TRACKING ...... 20 5.2 RANGE-WIDE INITIATIVE ...... 21 6 OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ...... 21 6.1 REPORTS ON SITE VISITS...... 21 6.1.1 Nogliki Exercise ...... 22 6.1.2 Piltun Exercise ...... 22 6.1.3 OSR Equipment Stockpiles ...... 23 6.1.4 OSRPs ...... 23 6.1.5 Discussion ...... 23 6.2 UPDATE ON OUTSTANDING OIL SPILL-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 6.3 FUTURE WORK OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TASK FORCE ...... 25 6.4 HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS ...... 25 6.5 STRANDING DETECTION AND RESPONSE ...... 26 7 NOISE ISSUES ...... 27 7.1 REVIEW OF PAST RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28
Page 2
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
7.1.1 WGWAP-11/003: review identified periods of loud noise...... 28 7.1.2 WGWAP-11/007: improved process for initial analysis of acoustic data ...... 29 7.1.3 WGWAP-11/006: activities document ...... 30 7.1.4 Panel discussion and conclusions ...... 30 7.2 2012 2-D SEISMIC (GEOTECHNICAL) SURVEY ...... 30 7.2.1 Conduct of the survey ...... 30 7.2.2 Panel discussion and conclusion...... 32 7.3 PROGRESS WITH ANALYSES OF DATA COLLECTED DURING THE 4-D SURVEY ...... 32 7.3.1 Noise cases ...... 33 7.3.2 Behaviour MVA ...... 33 7.3.3 Distribution MVAs ...... 34 7.3.4 Publication ...... 34 7.3.5 Panel discussion and recommendations...... 34 7.4 FUTURE 3-D/4-D SURVEYS ...... 35 7.4.1 Panel discussion and conclusions ...... 35 7.5 FUTURE WORK OF THE NTF ...... 35 7.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 36 8 UPDATE ON SOUTH PILTUN PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING ...... 36 9 ACTIVITIES BY SAKHALIN ENERGY AND OTHER COMPANIES ON SAKHALIN SHELF IN 2012, 2013 AND BEYOND ...... 38 9.1 2012 ...... 38 9.2 2013 AND BEYOND ...... 38 10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 39 10.1 PROGRESS ON ‘INTEGRATED ANALYSIS’ ...... 39 10.2 POPULATION CONSEQUENCES OF DISTURBANCE AND RELATED ISSUES ...... 40 11 UPDATE ON POPULATION ASSESSMENT ...... 41 12 WGWAP WORKPLAN FOR 2013 AND OTHER BUSINESS ...... 43 12.1 NEXT WGWAP MEETING ...... 43 12.2 TASK FORCES, WORKSHOPS, OTHER OPTIONS ...... 44 12.3 INTER-SESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT ...... 44 13 REFERENCES ...... 45 14 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 12TH MEETING OF WGWAP ...... 46 ANNEX 1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 67 ANNEX 2. FINAL MEETING AGENDA ...... 69 ANNEX 3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ...... 72
Page 3
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
ACRONYMS
ANSI American National Standards Institute CPA Closest Point of Approach DEFRA UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMTF Environmental Monitoring Task Force ENL Exxon Neftegas Limited ENP Eastern North Pacific GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic information system HAB Harmful algal bloom IBM Institute of Marine Biology IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare IFC International Finance Corporation ISO International Organization for Standardization ISRP Independent Scientific Review Panel IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWC International Whaling Commission IWG Interdepartmental Working Group (MNR) LNG Liquid Natural Gas MMO Marine mammal observer MMP Monitoring and Mitigation Plan MNR Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation MVA Multivariate analysis NGO Non-Governmental Organization NOAA (US) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC National Research Council NTF Noise Task Force OSR Oil Spill Response OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan OPF Oil Processing Facility PCFG Pacific Coast Feeding Group PA Piltun Area PNW Pacific Northwest PBDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCI Potential Cumulative Impact PCoD Population Consequences of Disturbance PMD Pipeline Maintenance Depot POI Pacific Oceanological Institute PSA Production Sharing Agreement RMS Root-Mean-Square
Page 4
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
SEIC Sakhalin Energy Investment Company SEL Sound Exposure Level SSTF Seismic Survey Task Force TECOP Technical, Economic, Commercial, Organisational and Political UNDP United Nations Development Programme VNIRO Russian Federal Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography WB World Bank WCC World Conservation Congress WGW Western Gray Whale WGWAP Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel
Page 5
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
1 OPENING 1.1 Introductory remarks The twelfth meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP-12) was held at the Paradise Hotel, Busan, Republic of Korea, from 5-7 November 2012 under the chairmanship of R.R. Reeves. The meeting was preceded by the third meeting of the Noise Task Force at the same venue on 2-3 November. All Panel members were present. Representatives of the following organisations also attended the meeting (see Annex 1).
ENVIRON Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd International Fund for Animal Welfare Pacific Environment (IFAW) Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd International Union for Conservation of Sakhalin Ministry of Natural Resources Nature (IUCN) NC Production Operations Company B.V. Korean Cetacean Research Institute, WWF Russia National Fisheries Research & Development Institute
Reeves welcomed the two local Korean scientists, Dr. Hyun Woo Kim and Dr. Hawsun Sohn, from the Cetacean Research Institute in Ulsan, who attended as Observers. He further welcomed an Observer from NC Production Operations Company in Kazakhstan (Pauwels) who was present to observe the process out of interest in establishing a similar panel for the Caspian Sea. Reeves also noted that a representative from the Sakhalin Ministry of Natural Resources (Nevenchina) was in attendance for the second consecutive meeting; this is a welcome and promising sign that efforts to engage with local government agencies could be paying off. Tatiana Saksina and Dennis Kjellqvist of IUCN facilitated meeting preparations and logistics. Anete Berzina attended as the incoming project officer from IUCN. Sarah Humphrey served as meeting rapporteur. Interpreters Alexander Danilov and Grigory Shkalikov provided excellent simultaneous translation, as always. The efforts of all of those individuals in support of the Panel’s work are greatly appreciated.
1.2 Adoption of agenda Reeves noted one unforeseen item that would be considered briefly under the Environmental Monitoring heading. Some Panel members had received a long, detailed proposal early on the morning of the first day of this meeting with a request that it be considered. This proposal concerned, among other things, establishment of a rapid response necropsy team to investigate large whale strandings in the Russian Far East. Under the circumstances, it was deemed impossible to give this proposal due consideration at the present time but it was agreed to have a brief discussion of it at the appropriate point in the agenda. Otherwise, the draft agenda was adopted without any major changes (Annex 2).
Page 6
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
1.3 Documents The list of documents is given in Annex 3. Those designated as public are available on the WGWAP website1. The Panel was disappointed that the final report on the 2011 acoustic monitoring component of the Joint Programme was not yet available in English (the Russian version was available as WGWAP-12/10). This meant that the usual review of the 2011 results by some Panel members (particularly Nowacek) was not possible before or at the time of the meeting. Assurance was given by Sakhalin Energy that the English translation would be provided via IUCN as soon as it is completed. Vedenev also reported that he had not received the 2011 data disk that normally accompanies the final acoustics report. The data were provided by Sakhalin Energy to both Vedenev and Nowacek during the meeting, but the Panel again emphasised the importance of receiving all documents and data relevant to a WGWAP meeting well in advance.
1.4 Reporting procedures and timelines The normal procedure is for the Panel to develop its draft report as quickly as is feasible, with the aim of making it available within a few weeks for fact-checking by Sakhalin Energy. The Company is expected to complete this check within two weeks so that the Panel can proceed quickly to make any necessary revisions. The final report is then posted on the WGWAP website. Reeves indicated that every effort would be made to make sure the WGWAP-12 report is publicly available before the Christmas break.
2 UPDATES
2.1 Status of recommendations
Reeves reported on progress towards ensuring that the cumulative list of Panel recommendations and their status is up to date and publicly available on the WGWAP website2. There are currently ten status categories, as follows:
Closed - no longer relevant but had not been implemented satisfactorily at the time it became moot Closed - moot Closed - superseded by a new recommendation Closed - implemented/resolved satisfactorily Closed - implemented/resolved satisfactorily but needs to be tracked regularly Retracted by WGWAP Rejected by Sakhalin Energy Open - in progress Open - no action yet taken Open - in need of clarification/expansion
In discussion it was noted that the new category of ‘Closed - implemented/resolved satisfactorily but needs to be tracked regularly’ had been introduced since the last WGWAP meeting. It was agreed that the WGWAP Chair would undertake, well in advance of each WGWAP meeting, a review of all
1 http://www.iucn.org/wgwap/wgwap/meetings/wgwap_12/ 2 http://www.iucn.org/wgwap/wgwap/recommendations/
Page 7
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
recommendations assigned to this category and identify any that need reconsideration by the Panel. For example, in some instances where the Company originally agreed to and did carry out a recommended action, it has since changed its priorities, policies or procedures such that the action is no longer being carried out. The Panel therefore would need to consider whether it wished to make a new recommendation that would supersede the old one.
Other items suggested by participants and agreed by all concerned were the following: Old recommendations that are no longer relevant will remain on the cumulative list but be shaded in some way to indicate their archival status. Each recommendations table on the website will hereafter be marked with a date to which the table is current. IUCN will update the recommendations tables on the website on a regular basis, and not less often than every two months. At the time of each update, a PDF file containing only those recommendations that have not yet been classified as ‘Closed’ in some way (i.e. are in one of the three last categories on the above list) will also be posted on the website. Immediately before each WGWAP meeting, a summary table showing the number of recommendations falling under each status category will be prepared by IUCN and circulated to participants as background information.
Finally, the WGWAP Terms of Reference state that Sakhalin Energy is committed to implement ‘reasonable’ recommendations of the Panel or, in instances where the Company does not accept or intend to implement a recommendation, it will provide a ‘clear explanation’ as to why. An issue addressed in considerable detail by the Noise Task Force, and more briefly at the WGWAP meeting, concerned how to handle recommendations that are ‘Rejected’ by Sakhalin Energy. This is discussed under Item 2.2 below.
2.2 General consideration of recommendations, especially Task Force recommendations, that are initially rejected by the Company During the Task Force meeting immediately before WGWAP-12, the NTF Chair expressed concern that two recommendations (discussed under Item 7.1 of the present Panel report) that had been developed and agreed by the entire NTF and endorsed by the WGWAP were rejected by the Company in its official response to the WGWAP report. The NTF concluded the Company’s response had been a result of misunderstanding, miscommunication and/or less careful drafting of the recommendations than is required. The associated discussion reflected the desire of all participants to prevent this from happening again. It was agreed that great care must be taken by Company members of Task Forces, as well as by Panel members, to ensure that sensitive issues (e.g. related to data ownership or references to contractors rather than the Company itself) are handled judiciously during the process of drafting recommendations by task forces. As noted above, a key principle of the WGWAP process is that the Company will implement ‘reasonable recommendations’ of the Panel and will ‘clearly identify and document the specific areas and points where (i) they were/will be accepted and/or (ii) they were not/will not be accepted and/or implemented, including a clear explanation’. The Company stated its position as follows: Recommendations which either bring Sakhalin Energy into conflict with other operators or that open it to legal action cannot and will not be implemented by the Company as it deems such recommendations to be ‘unreasonable’. The Company indicated that this was the basis for its rejection of both of the recommendations discussed during the NTF meeting. As a result of its discussions, the NTF proposed the following general recommendation, which was adopted by the Panel.
Page 8
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES BY THE COMPANY Objective Task Force recommendations are agreed by all members (Panel and Company alike) and proposed to the Panel. In the unlikely event that a recommendation of this kind is adopted by the Panel but then rejected by the Company, the objective here is to provide a clear mechanism that allows difficulties to be addressed as soon as possible. Approach Great care must be taken by Task Forces in drafting recommendations to ensure that if rejection occurs it is not due to legal or administrative problems with wording. Task Force recommendations that are adopted without change by the Panel will be clearly identified in the Panel’s report. If despite this, the Company decides to reject such a recommendation, notification of the rejection should occur in a separate e-mail message from the Company to IUCN, along with a clear explanation of the rationale. IUCN should immediately bring this to the attention of the WGWAP Chair and, where appropriate, the relevant Task Force chair(s) to enable prompt follow-up action to try to remedy the situation as soon as possible. Responsible Party/Parties Task Force members, the Company, IUCN Timeline If a recommendation is to be rejected, in whole or in part, the Company will notify IUCN as soon as possible and IUCN will contact the Chair of the Panel.
2.3 Website Kjellqvist highlighted changes that had been made to the website since WGWAP-11. He noted that further changes were being made to both structure and content based on discussions at the NTF-3 meeting (see item 7, below). The Panel endorsed the NTF’s view of the importance of ensuring that links to important documents remain consistent (e.g. using permalinks) if their position moves due to website reorganisation. In the future, Berzina will be taking over for Kjellqvist as the primary hands-on website manager, with support from Saksina and the Chair.
Saksina drew attention to previous discussions at WGWAP meetings concerning the importance of sharing ‘lessons learned’ and ‘best practices’. IUCN had produced, with considerable help from Panel members, Sakhalin Energy, and Associated Scientists, two new brochures since the last WGWAP meeting, one on the WGWAP process overall (basically a revised, updated version of the previous WGWAP brochure) and one specifically on seismic survey monitoring and mitigation. These brochures were distributed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September 2012 (see item 2.6, below) and at this and other meetings (again see item 2.6). Both are available on the website.
The Panel thanked Kjellqvist and Saksina for their hard work in preparing these brochures and also acknowledged the financial support provided by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which enabled Nowacek and Brandon Southall to dedicate time to preparation of the seismic survey brochure.
2.4 IUCN personnel, Rules of Procedure and recommendations addressed to IUCN Saksina noted there has been a lot of turnover in IUCN staff, with three different Logistics and Communications Officers being responsible for WGWAP support over the last nine months. Kjellqvist
Page 9
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
will soon be leaving the programme to continue his studies and he will be replaced by Berzina beginning in December 2012.
Saksina also pointed out that IUCN had developed Rules of Procedure for WGWAP meetings, as requested at WGWAP-11 (document WGWAP-12/5). She explained that having such rules is a common practice for international organisations and conferences of parties. Several examples from other organisational contexts were used as a basis for developing the WGWAP Rules, which clarify how meetings should proceed and how the information presented should be shared or otherwise handled, especially with regard to confidential information. Both Reeves and Vladimirov had given Saksina input on draft iterations of the Rules over the last few months.
In response to questions raised by Observers, Saksina stated that the Rules, which apply specifically to WGWAP meetings, are consistent with the WGWAP Terms of Reference. She stressed the importance of ensuring that participants in meetings are able to share information and express opinions on the understanding that the Panel’s findings and positions will be communicated only through its final reports or through official statements made by the Chair on the Panel’s behalf. The integrity of the process depends on everyone involved acting in good faith to respect both the spirit and the letter of the Rules of Procedure. Saksina invited anyone with concerns about the Rules or how they are being applied to bring these concerns to her, preferably in writing.
With regard to recommendation WGWAP-11/002, Saksina reported that IUCN had written to the Government of Sakhalin Oblast for information on fisheries and received a response, in Russian, a few days prior to this meeting. Saksina planned to translate and share this response with the Panel, Company and Observers. The letter contains information on the types of fisheries and on numbers of inshore or coastal vessels, with some general information on fisheries that operate far offshore and well away from the gray whale feeding areas. The Panel looks forward to receiving the information and welcomes the opening of this channel of communication with the Oblast Government.
Saksina also reported that IUCN had identified some potential donors for satellite tagging and other work on western gray whales. Further discussion was deferred to a later item in the agenda (see Item 4.3).
2.5 Overview of Sakhalin Energy activities since WGWAP-11 Evans reported that Sakhalin Energy’s activities in the summer of 2012, apart from normal operations, centred on the South Piltun site survey and on the annual Joint Programme of environmental and gray whale monitoring. Most of these activities are covered in detail under later items in the agenda. He emphasised that the site survey was conducted in full compliance with WGWAP recommendations on mitigation and monitoring and the Panel expressed its appreciation for the Company’s efforts in this regard.
Sakhalin Energy mobilises a dynamically positioned accommodation vessel, the Heimdal, to manage the staff required to execute various engineering and maintenance tasks during the summer (ice-free) months. Use of the Heimdal is regarded as an annual, ongoing necessity for the foreseeable future.
2.6 IWC, IWG, WCC workshop, Suzdal roundtable
2.6.1 International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee At its annual meeting in June 2012, the IWC Scientific Committee received updates on, among other things, satellite tagging, photo-ID, genetic analyses and cross-Pacific photographic and genetic matching of gray whales (IWC in press and see www.iwcoffice.org). It made a series of recommendations, as follows:
Page 10
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
that an evaluation of healing of the wounds caused by the satellite tags be undertaken and provided at next year’s meeting; that the collaborative basin-wide study of population structure be continued (see Item 5, below), especially the plans to collect additional biopsies for genetic comparisons and photographs for catalogue comparisons; that existing data be used to attempt to estimate the proportion of animals that regularly feed off Sakhalin and also migrate to the eastern North Pacific in the winter; and that appropriate monitoring and mitigation plans be implemented for all oil and gas activities that occur in the range of western gray whales, especially if another platform is to be built or installed off Sakhalin.
The Scientific Committee also re-emphasised its view of the importance of the WGWAP’s work and reiterated its support for that work.
The Panel reiterated its view that matters of stock identity and population structure are more appropriately discussed by the IWC Scientific Committee rather than in the WGWAP, given the broader range of expertise (e.g. with respect to genetics and conservation/management implications of differing stock structure hypotheses and allowances for uncertainty) within the Scientific Committee. Of course, information presented at WGWAP meetings will continue to be made available to the IWC Scientific Committee and the results of that Committee’s discussions and conclusions will continue to be reported to the WGWAP.
In a document submitted to the Scientific Committee in June 2012, Kato et al. (2012) reported a sighting (accompanied by photographs) of what was judged to be a young gray whale on 12 March 2012 off Cape Irago, Tahara, Aichi, Japan (34°36’N -137°01’E).
2.6.2 Interdepartmental Working Group (IWG) of Ministry of Natural Resources Reeves and Tsidulko attended the December 2011 IWG meeting in Moscow as observers, and Yablokov attended as a participating member. Evans and Vladimirov were also present representing Sakhalin Energy. The IWG met again in February 2012 and Vladimirov reported that inter alia it considered the Scope of Work for the 2012 Joint WGW Monitoring Programme and the status of a project proposal to UNDP/GEF.
Saksina and Reeves are expected to attend the next IWG meeting in December to make presentations on the Jeju workshop (see next item) and on the results of WGWAP-12, respectively.
Minutes summarising the positions expressed by members at IWG meetings are published by MNR. The Panel requests that IUCN obtain and distribute to all Panel members English translations of the minutes of recent and future IWG meetings.
2.6.3 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Jeju A workshop on western gray whales and the WGWAP process was jointly organised by Sakhalin Energy and IUCN at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, Republic of Korea, in September 2012. The workshop was facilitated by Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of the IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme, and hosted by Saksina. Vladimirov and Reeves gave presentations and these were followed by discussions among participants. Brownell was present to help represent the Panel.
2.6.4 Suzdal The seventh (biennial) conference ‘Marine Mammals of the Holarctic’ took place in Suzdal, Russia, in late September 2012. It was well attended by participants in this meeting (Yablokov, Vedenev, Knizhnikov, Reeves, Vladimirov). A roundtable workshop on western gray whales was convened by A.M. Burdin and V.Yu. Ilyashenko. There were extensive discussions of a variety of topics, notably
Page 11
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
following a presentation of new genetic analyses of samples from Sakhalin, eastern Kamchatka, Koryak and Chukotka (Meschersky et al. 2012).
Vladimirov noted the extensive representation of oil and gas companies at the conference and that they had expressed interest in marine mammal science, risk mitigation and minimisation of impacts on marine mammals.
2.6.5 Other Knizhnikov asked IUCN if invitations to attend WGWAP-12 had been sent to the relevant Russian ministries and to other oil and gas companies. Saksina said that invitations had been sent to about 15 targeted individuals, including officials of Gazprom and Rosneft. Despite the lack of response from any except the Sakhalin MNR, she assured that IUCN would continue its efforts in this regard, including trying to meet with some key individuals at the IWG meeting in December. The Panel suggested that in many instances a more promising approach would be to address such invitations to the heads of the agencies, organisations or companies rather than to specific individuals (although in some cases it may be appropriate and useful to indicate preferred individuals). The people who would represent an agency, organisation or company are unlikely to consider coming on a voluntarily basis and instead would need to be appointed by the management.
3 REPORTS ON FIELD ACTIVITIES IN 2011 (NOT INCLUDING SOUTH PILTUN SITE SURVEY WORK)
Vladimirov reported that 2012 Joint Programme field activities had been completed just two weeks before this meeting and therefore results were not yet available. The focus of presentations was on final results from the 2011 Programme.
3.1 Photo-identification Tyurneva provided an overview of information collected during the joint Sakhalin Energy/ENL 2011 photo-identification surveys. Overall, the 2011 effort was similar to that undertaken in previous years. Small-boat surveys (and opportunistic photographs taken from the R/V Igor Maksimov) were conducted off Sakhalin on 24 days between 19 August and 5 October with 36 hours dedicated to photographing whales in the Piltun, Offshore and Chaivo areas. Over 12,000 photographs were collected, resulting in the identification of 124 whales including 7 mother-calf pairs and 8 independent calves (meaning that the total number of calves in 2011 was 15). The relatively large number of whales identified by IBM in 2011 was, in part, due to the inclusion of additional photographs collected by a separate satellite tagging programme working in the Piltun area between 23 August and 21 September 2011. Overall, photographs collected by the tagging team contributed 13 of the 124 whales identified.
In 2012, the IBM team added biopsy sampling to its research programme. In total, 20 whales (17 different individuals) were sampled. In discussion, the Panel asked for details of the equipment used for sampling and how the samples were archived. Although Vladimirov and Broker offered sufficient information regarding this question, the Panel encouraged them to seek additional advice and guidance from the Panel in the future with regard to how to optimise the biopsy sampling programme (and any new research component).
In addition to the photo-identification and biopsy effort off Sakhalin in 2011, small-boat surveys were conducted in Olga Bay, south-eastern Kamchatka. Between 21 July and 8 August, surveys were conducted during three days in July and three in August. Almost 8,000 photographs were collected, resulting in the identification of 30 whales of which 12 were already in the Sakhalin catalogue. Two
Page 12
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
mother-calf pairs were recorded in Olga Bay in 2011. None of these four individuals has been identified off Sakhalin. Of the 205 whales contained in the IBM Sakhalin catalogue, 137 were sighted in 2011 when data from both Sakhalin and Kamchatka were combined (see Figure II-9 in the report). Tyurneva reported that in 2012 almost 19,000 photo-ID images were collected during approximately 15 days of small boat-based effort in the Offshore area, 18 days in the Piltun area and 2 days off Chaivo. These data are currently being processed and may be discussed at the next meeting of the Panel. The Panel welcomed the presentation of these data and thanked Tyurneva and her colleagues for their dedication and hard work.
3.2 Distribution Vladimirov provided an overview of data collected by IBM and VNIRO during the joint Sakhalin Energy/ENL 2011 vessel- and shore-based distribution surveys. Vessel surveys were conducted from the R/V Igor Maksimov between 4 August and 5 October. No vessel-based surveys were completed in the Piltun (nearshore) feeding area in 2011 due to limited ship availability resulting from the competing demands of the satellite tagging programme. Thus, 2011 results of whale distribution surveys in the Piltun area come solely from shore-based effort. Two vessel surveys were conducted in the Offshore feeding area in 2011. One partial survey (due to poor weather) covering approximately 50% of the study area was completed on 20 August and eight whales were counted. A complete survey of the entire study area was conducted on 23 September during which time 34 whales were counted. Given the limited effort in 2011, it was not possible to assess seasonal variation in gray whale abundance and distribution in the Offshore area as had been done in the past. Nonetheless, it appears that whales were concentrated in approximately the same area as in 2010 (i.e. the more eastern portion of the Offshore feeding area).
In discussion of the vessel-based programme, the Panel noted that transect lines employed during the 2011 offshore surveys were modified from those used in the past. According to Sakhalin Energy, this change was a direct result of the Company’s effort to implement Panel recommendation WGWAP- 09/006. Transect length was extended eastward by 4 km to provide greater coverage offshore but the number of traverses was reduced from eight to six with the distance between them increased from 6.5 to 9 km. While the Panel welcomed the extension of the eastern transect lines, it was disappointed to learn that the companies changed other aspects of the survey design to accommodate the extension. This led to a general discussion about consulting the Panel for advice and guidance when substantive changes are made to the research programme (also see Item 3.5, below). The Panel suggested that having MMOs record observations of fishing vessels, particularly during surveys of the offshore feeding area, might provide useful information for future consideration. The Company responded that during surveys MMOs are fully engaged with their primary task of scanning for marine mammals. Moreover, MMOs are not trained to distinguish the different types of fishing vessels and gears. The Company stated its position that requiring MMOs to observe for vessels would detract from marine mammal observation and therefore jeopardize the quality of the marine mammal data collected. The 2011 shore-based distribution effort was similar to that of previous years. Surveys were conducted between 1 August and 26 September 2011. Although poor weather conditions prevailed during some portions of the study period, a total of 14 complete synchronised surveys (i.e. all 13 shore stations covered in a single day) were completed. No surveys were conducted 1-14 August due to poor weather. Between 15-26 August, 1-15 September and 16-26 September, 5, 3 and 6 surveys were completed, respectively. The highest abundance occurred during the 15-26 August period during which time the average number of whales recorded was 89 (range 78-103). The north-south distribution of gray whales in the nearshore feeding area during August-September 2011 was similar to 2010, including areas of high whale concentrations near the mouth of Piltun Lagoon and in the northern part of the study area. One difference observed in 2011 that had not been reported in 2010 was a small localised aggregation of
Page 13
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
whales at the southern edge of the survey area.
While results from 2011 were generally similar to those from 2010, whales observed in the nearshore feeding area were significantly closer to shore than recorded any time between 2004 and 2010. The percentage of whales sighted within 0.5 km of shore during August and September 2011 was 34.7%. This number is 4.5 times higher than any previous August-September period between 2004-2010 when an average of 7.9% (range 5.0-10.6%) was recorded. This change in distribution (at least during the second and third weeks of September when a seismic survey was underway ‘far offshore’) is discussed in the following way in the 2011 close-out report prepared by VNIRO (document WGWAP 12/09, Vol. II, Chapter 1-34):
“Offshore seismic exploration (unknown operator) seaward of the northern part of the Piltun area from September 7 through September 17 may have affected the gray whale distribution. It is possible that the shift of the whales toward the shoreline near survey stations 1 to 7 observed during the first half of September (Figure I-1), which was reflected in the overall figures for the whale distribution by distance from shore and depth in the Odoptu-Piltun area (Table I-5), was related to the seismic survey, although the survey was conducted in the open sea far offshore (a seismic survey vessel was seen at a considerable distance and only when it was working the seismic profiles closest to shore). During the second half of September, after seismic survey ended, the whales again populated a somewhat broader area in the northern feeding waters (Figure I-1). The noise impact due to seismic survey on the gray whale distribution in the Piltun area can be assessed in greater detail only after processing of the acoustic monitoring data and a comparative analysis of the data and the changes in the whale distribution.”
The Panel further noted Conclusion 8 (document WGWAP 12/09, Vol. II, Chapter 1-46):
“The intensification of industrial activity on the continental shelf of northeastern Sakhalin in the 2000's associated with the start of the development of oil and gas fields has not resulted in measurable negative changes in the distribution of gray whales in the waters of the area – their habitat zone has gradually expanded, and the abundance of whales has increased.”
Although it is true that the best available evidence indicates that the population has been increasing, the conclusions concerning distribution and habitat use are premature, and the Panel encourages the scientific contractors to interpret data and analyses more cautiously until conclusive evidence is presented supporting such assertions.
The Panel asked Vladimirov to thank the scientists involved for their hard work and dedication to this long-term programme.
3.3 Benthic Fadeev summarized sampling effort and data for benthic invertebrate populations, including likely gray whale prey in known feeding areas off north-eastern Sakhalin Island, from the summer and early autumn 2011 field season. Because of limited time available in the agenda, there was little opportunity for discussion. Fadeev’s presentation was supported by extensive information on benthic sampling protocols and data found in documents WGWAP-12/6 and 12/8. Samples collected during the 2011 field season included the following: 1) Benthic sediments: Piltun Area, Offshore Area and gray whale feeding points; 2) Benthic invertebrates: Piltun Area, Offshore Area and gray whale feeding points; 3) Contaminants in sediments: heavy metals in Piltun and Offshore Areas, organochlorine pesticides in Piltun Area and petroleum hydrocarbons in Piltun Area; 4) Contaminants in tissues of long-lived bivalve molluscs: Piltun Area and Offshore Area.
Page 14
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Benthic invertebrate samples were not collected in 2011 in the ‘Chaivo feeding sub-area’ or in Olga Bay (south-eastern Kamchatka). Documents 12/6 and 12/8 were unclear regarding collection of benthic polychaete worms for tissue contaminant analyses in 2011. Such collections have been made in previous years. Data continue to indicate low values for all contaminant categories in sediments of gray whale feeding areas on the north-eastern Sakhalin shelf. In all cases, measured values are below background levels (defined as naturally occurring levels in sediments prior to industrialisation of the region beginning in the mid-1990s). Measured levels of heavy metals (ten categories) in sediments are in all cases below published minimum ‘probable active concentrations’ for detectable biological damage. Some of the 2011 contaminant samples have not yet been analysed. The Panel encourages continued sampling for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments, and reiterates previous recommendations that sampling be expanded to include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in order to bring the sampling program to consistency with broadly accepted practices for assessments of ecosystem contamination by persistent organic contaminants associated with regional industrialisation. The Panel also reiterates previous recommendations that sampling of benthic organisms for tissue contamination be expanded to include known or suspected primary gray whale prey, including the following suggested species: 1) Piltun Area:
Amphipoda: Monoporeia affinis and Eogammarus schmidti; Isopoda: Synidotea cinerea and Saduria entomon; Fish: Sand lance (Ammodytes hexaptera).
2) Offshore Area:
Amphipoda: Ampelisca eschrischti; Cumacea: Diastylis bidentata.
The Panel reiterates previous suggestions that annual sampling for contaminants may not be necessary as long as consistent protocols are applied; biennial or triennial sampling may be adequate to track trends. At face value, benthic invertebrate data reported by Fadeev and colleagues for 2011 are consistent with those collected in previous years in terms of biomass, taxonomic composition, relative abundances of species and spatial distributions on the north-eastern Sakhalin shelf. Amphipod biomass has been similar across recent years in the Piltun Area (at depths <15 m) and in the Offshore Area (at all depths). Densities of sand lance in the Piltun Area in 2011 were substantially higher than in 2010, and may be returning to levels observed in the northern Piltun Area in 2004 and 2005, possibly as part of a recurring population cycle. The Panel is concerned regarding apparent changes in sampling distribution and methods in 2011 as compared to previous years, and related apparent inconsistencies between meeting documents WGWAP-12/6 and 12/8 and the presentation during the meeting. Fadeev briefly addressed these concerns during his presentation, indicating that problems associated with methodological changes had been solved and that 2012 fieldwork involved the same methods as used in sampling years prior to 2011. The Panel nevertheless remains concerned about the following specific issues associated with benthic sampling in 2011: 1) Document WGWAP-12/6 indicates that sampling of benthic organisms in gray whale feeding areas in 2011 was generally less satisfactory than in previous years. Two major issues were noted. First, the R/V Igor Maximov was used to support benthic sampling for the first time in 2011, replacing the R/V Academic Oparin, which had been the primary survey support vessel in
Page 15
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
previous years. The document indicates that the Igor Maximov is slower and equipped with less powerful winches for deploying benthic sampling devices, and that benthic sampling was diminished in priority during 2011 in deference to vessel support needs associated with gray whale tagging for telemetry studies. Differences in support vessel characteristics and utilisation priorities resulted in a reduced number of samples collected in 2011 as compared to previous years. In addition, the inability of winches on the Igor Maximov to lower sampling devices rapidly, in the manner typical of the Academic Oparin, meant that the devices penetrated benthic sediments less deeply during 2011 than in previous years.
Taken together, these changes have substantial implications for comparability of 2011 benthic data to the benthic data from previous years in a statistical context. Document 12/6 acknowledges the changes in methods and indicates the need to apply correction factors to 2011 data before using them in trend analyses. However, document WGWAP-12/8 does not present any detailed information on how such correction factors would be developed or applied. Instead, it presents the 2011 data in a manner implying comparability with the data from previous years. In document 12/8, the statistical implications of altered sampling protocols in 2011 are noted only in vague terms in the discussion of abundance data for sand lance, and again in the Conclusions section (item 1 on page 3-48). The issue is not discussed adequately in the data presentation sections of the report, and the stated need (in document 12/6) for correction factors for the 2011 data was not addressed adequately in Fadeev’s presentation at the meeting.
2) Document WGWAP-12/6 indicates that no benthic samples were collected during 2011 in the Chaivo feeding sub-area, unlike previous years, ‘because no feeding whales were recorded there’ (page 4-101). Leaving aside the fact that the shore-based distribution and photo-ID teams did observe whales in the Chaivo area in 2011, it is unclear why the absence of observations of feeding whales at the time when the research vessel is present would preclude standard sampling of resident benthos at randomly located stations to measure year-to-year variation in the assemblage. In summary, the Panel is concerned that the benthic data collected in 2011 may not be compatible, in a statistical context, with benthic data collected in previous years, and that changes in sampling effort and methods in 2011 may have caused a perturbation of unknown magnitude in the time series of benthic assemblage data for western gray whale feeding areas. The Panel requests clarification regarding the intentions of Fadeev and colleagues to apply necessary correction factors to the 2011 data, and to explain methods for statistical estimation of the required correction factors including associated error terms. In the absence of such an effort, the Panel must regard the 2011 benthic data as without value in assessing long-term trends in the abundance of whale prey on the north-eastern Sakhalin shelf. The Panel is also concerned that the lack of whale sightings in the Chaivo feeding sub-area apparently was used to justify the failure to collect benthic data there during the 2011 field season. The Panel regards an understanding of linkages between benthic prey abundance and whale distribution to be essential in supporting the broader goal of understanding the relationship between whale density and behaviour and the activities associated with offshore oil and gas development in the region. Failure to sample an area in a given season because of changes in whale numbers undercuts effective pursuit of the goal, to the detriment of the needs of Sakhalin Energy as well as of the broader community of interested parties. The lack of whale sightings in the Chaivo feeding sub-area in 2011 could have been a result of reduced prey availability there, an activity of Sakhalin Energy or another company, or some other unknown factor or factors. Without benthic data for 2011, it becomes more difficult to rule out industry activity as the cause of the absence of whales. The Panel expressed some concern over the decision to forego sampling of benthos in the Chaivo feeding sub-area in 2011 based on the absence of whale sightings; it discourages such practices in the future. The Panel requests that Sakhalin Energy provide clarification of how decisions to sample or not to sample the benthos in an area such as Chaivo are made. This issue requires discussion at the next WGWAP meeting.
Page 16
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
3.4 Acoustics Rutenko presented the 2011 acoustics report on behalf of the Company. As noted earlier, the Panel was disappointed that despite the fact that over a year had passed since these data were collected, the final report was available only in Russian for WGWAP-12. Furthermore, due to an error, the overview data (i.e. composite spectrograms) were only provided during the meeting, not in advance in any form. This meant that the Panel was not able to consider the 2011 acoustics data in any detail at or in preparation for WGWAP-12. Since the report was available in Russian, Vedenev was able to make a preliminary review. This preliminary review identified two issues the Panel wishes to address. First, the noise levels recorded on some of the buoys appear to exceed the thresholds set by the Panel for continuous noise at the edge of the Piltun feeding area. For example, at the PA-B-20 buoy, continuous levels were in excess of 123 dB for approximately 48 hours beginning at 18:00 on 11 August. At the same buoy (PA-B-20) continuous levels were in excess of 120 dB from 16:00 on 7 September until 02:00 on 10 September and from 15:00 on 10 September to 02:00 on 11 September. Shapes of the sonograms of the recorded data indicate that the source of the extreme noise detected in August (from 15:00 on the 12th to 19:00 on the 14th) and September (from 23:00 on the 7th to 17:00 on the 11th) was moving. At WGWAP-2, the Panel had recommended that mitigation be initiated (i.e. operations suspended) when continuous noise levels exceed 123 dB re: 1 Pa RMS for 4 hours. In order to investigate this anomalous situation, the Panel requests that Sakhalin Energy provide a description of its activities around the PA-B platform at the times in question for discussion at the next meeting of the Noise Task Force. The other issue arising from the preliminary review pertains to the ‘control’ acoustic recording site that has long been part of the acoustic monitoring component of the Joint Programme. The noise levels recorded on the Control buoy are clearly influenced by industrial activity and at times they even exceed the Panel’s established acceptable levels. For example, beginning at 17:00 on 12 August 2011, the broadband continuous noise level at this buoy rose above 120 dB and remained there until 01:00 on 15 August. For approximately five continuous hours during this period of time, the received noise levels actually exceeded 140 dB. This buoy is well north of the primary near-shore feeding area, but with respect to its function as a control site, these levels are troubling. Levels at this location have been elevated in the past (e.g. 21-22 September 2010), and as such the Panel suggests that a new control site be selected because clearly this one no longer qualifies as a quiet area that dependably reflects ‘natural’ ambient conditions. During discussion, Evans stated that the Company shared the Panel’s disappointment about not having the English version of the final report available earlier, and that this issue was being addressed internally. Whatever the reason(s) for the delay, the Panel emphasised that such delays in receiving reports complicate later meetings by requiring that space be added to agendas for retrospective consideration of topics that should have and could have been addressed in a more orderly, timely and thorough way. In this instance, there are issues in the 2011 acoustics report that must be addressed, and the Panel expects to pursue these once the document is available in English. Given the specialist nature of the topic and the limited time available during full Panel meetings, the Panel concluded that it would be most appropriate for the thorough review of this report to occur at the next meeting of the Noise Task Force.
3.5 Future of Joint Programme Vladimirov gave a brief presentation on Sakhalin Energy’s planning for the 2013 joint monitoring programme with ENL. He stated that this planning was preliminary and no decisions had been taken, and that discussions with ENL were in a relatively early stage. It was nonetheless clear that (a) the Company anticipated some significant changes to logistics which could affect the dedicated vessel- based surveys of the Offshore feeding area and (b) a switch from vessel- to shore-based photo- identification effort was being considered. Vladimirov noted that the driving forces behind these changes were advice from the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Interdepartmental Working Group and the Company’s need to achieve cost savings to accommodate budget cuts imposed by the Russian Party.
Page 17
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
The Panel expressed strong concern that potentially important modifications to the Company’s long- running monitoring and research programme were brought to its attention only during this meeting, with no advance notice and without any documentation justifying and explaining details of the proposed changes. The invaluable long-term data sets generated by the Joint Programme have formed much of the basis for the Panel’s ability to advise on mitigation measures and assess their effectiveness. It is therefore critical that the potential consequences of changes to the programme are properly evaluated in a rigorous scientific manner and that due consideration is given to the integrity of the long-term data sets developed by the Joint Programme. The Panel’s serious concern over the proposed changes is magnified by the prospect of construction activities related to the South Piltun development as well as future seismic surveys. The Panel has expressed concern over previous changes to the Joint Programme, including the removal of regular behavioural monitoring. It recognises the importance of cost-effectiveness and efficiency. However, decisions concerning changes to the scientific programme are central to the remit of the Panel. At a minimum, the Panel should have an opportunity to advise on priorities if significant reductions in the monitoring and research budgets are dictated by the Company/ies. By the end of WGWAP-12, the Panel could only conclude that it was not in a position to provide a rigorous review on the basis of the information provided at the meeting. Subsequent discussions among Sakhalin Energy, the Panel Chair and IUCN led to agreement that the Panel would form an ad hoc Task Force to meet inter-sessionally and consider this matter in-depth. The Company gave assurance that such consultation would take place before final decisions were made regarding programme design. It was emphasised that logistics and contracting aspects of the Joint Programme would remain at the Company’s discretion and that the Task Force would focus on the scientific integrity of the long-term data series and on ensuring that the nature and effectiveness of future mitigation efforts are not compromised by programme changes. The remit of the 2013 Joint Programme Task Force therefore is to verify, to the Panel’s satisfaction, that the Joint Programme in 2013 will meet the same scientific objectives to at least the same level and degree as was intended by the 2012 programme and in addition will not compromise the Panel’s ability to provide advice on the potential impacts of the South Piltun development. Panel members of this Task Force will include Reeves (Task Force Chairman), Weller, Tsidulko, Cooke and Donovan. The Task Force will meet early in 2013 and report back to the Panel immediately after its meeting so that the Panel’s advice can be conveyed to the Company in a timely way, i.e. while any necessary changes to programme design will still be feasible from a regulatory and logistical standpoint.
4 SATELLITE TAGGING
4.1 ‘Varvara’ results The western gray whale satellite tagging project in 2010 and 2011 was conducted collaboratively by the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Oregon State University's Marine Mammal Institute (principal investigators Valentin Ilyashenko and Bruce Mate). The tag placed on ‘Varvara’ in 2011 lasted for more than a year, which is consistent with the tag’s predicted battery life. Her migration route was different during eastern and western movements. She joined the winter migration of eastern gray whales in the eastern North Pacific, including travel to the wintering lagoons off Baja California, Mexico. Her return back to Sakhalin (arriving in mid-May) was earlier than predicted. Despite having been in the general Sakhalin study area all summer according to the tag data, it was still uncertain at the time of the meeting whether IBM photo-ID researchers on the water had documented her presence there during the 2012 feeding season (the Russia-US research team did not photo-identify her at Sakhalin in 2012). The tagging work was contracted through the IWC and IUCN with funding from ENL and Sakhalin Energy. The Panel welcomed Mate’s report on this work and congratulated the team on its efforts.
Page 18
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
4.2 Consideration of photographs of tagged whales Weller summarised an assessment of follow-up photographs from whales satellite-tagged off Sakhalin in 2010 and 2011. This analysis was undertaken to provide information on resighting histories, wound healing and body condition of tagged whales. The photographs used in this exercise were contributed by the Russia-US research programme (Alexander Burdin). Overall, of the 7 whales tagged between 2010 and 2011, 5 were photographed by the Russia-US team off Sakhalin in the year subsequent to the year they were tagged. As mentioned above, ‘Varvara’ (tagged in 2011) was not resighted by the Russia-US team in 2012 but was indeed present off Sakhalin between May and October 2012 based on tag-derived location information. Taking into account the return of ‘Varvara’ in 2012, it can be said that 6 of the 7 whales tagged returned the following year. This includes ‘Flex’, who was tagged in 2010 and returned in both 2011 and 2012. Of the five whales photographically re-identified, all were subjectively determined by Weller to be in good body condition. Suitable photographs for evaluation of tag site and wound healing were available for only 3 individuals. In each case, the tag attachment site had a clearly visible depression or divot inhabited by cyamids (‘whale lice’). The depression observed on ‘Flex’ was slightly larger than those on the other two whales. Overall, there was no external evidence of significant complications at the wound site. The Panel welcomed these results and recommends that a similar assessment of follow-up photographs of whales satellite-tagged off Sakhalin in 2010 and 2011 be conducted by the IBM team and results presented at the next meeting. In discussion of future tagging, Weller referred to a recently published paper by Moore et al. (2012), and specifically the section regarding implanted devices that span the blubber-muscle interface, such as the satellite tags used on Sakhalin gray whales in 2010 and 2011. During the post-mortem examination of a North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), those authors found that a stainless-steel sedation dart (30 cm long, 7 mm outside diameter, 0.9 mm wall thickness) had an 80º bend in it at the blubber-muscle interface. Their conclusion: “This bend occurred due to epaxial muscle movement relative to the overlying blubber, with resultant necrosis and cavitation of underlying muscle. This suggests that rigid, implanted devices that span the cetacean blubber muscle interface, where the muscle moves relative to the blubber, could have secondary health impacts. Thus we encourage efforts to develop new tag telemetry systems that do not penetrate the subdermal sheath, but still remain attached for many months.” Given those observations, and in particular the finding of necrosis and cavitation of underlying muscle, it is clear that simple assessments of external wound healing (as reported above) are inadequate to fully assess the potential health impacts resulting from tag attachment. Mate assured the Panel that these issues had been discussed in the past and would be considered further during an upcoming meeting on sperm whale tagging. The Panel looks forward to reviewing information from that meeting and requests that Mate provide a summary for consideration at the next WGWAP meeting.
4.3 Future plans At previous meetings, after considerable discussion and guidance, the Panel (and IWC Scientific Committee) encouraged the tagging of gray whales at Sakhalin in 2010 and 2011. The main objective of this work was to determine the whales’ migration route(s) and winter breeding and calving area(s) along the Asian coast. To the surprise of most, the tagging study found that all three whales that could be tracked after they left Sakhalin waters migrated to the eastern Pacific. One of them ('Varvara') joined the migration stream of eastern gray whales along the west coast of North America to and from wintering areas in Mexico, ultimately returning back to Sakhalin for the summer feeding season.
Mate presented a plan for continued tagging in 2013 (see IWC in press). The work would take place in Olga Bay, south-eastern Kamchatka. Whales are present in Olga Bay from early June and tagging has shown that they can arrive there as early as May. Whales continue to arrive through most of the
Page 19
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
summer, reaching an apparent peak in July. Not all whales observed in Olga Bay have been seen off Sakhalin (although a large proportion of them have been sighted in both areas). The vast majority (upwards of 60%) of these whales are skinny upon arrival after fasting during their winter migration. The proposal to tag gray whales off Kamchatka has several objectives: (1) better understand summer feeding by identifying seasonal foraging areas, (2) identify the migration routes and timing of whales that are subsequently seen at Sakhalin and of those that are not seen at Sakhalin to determine if either of these ‘patterns’ can help explain the observations of gray whales in Japan and China, (3) use this information to guide more focused surveys of any newly discovered areas of occurrence to identify additional whales and (4) advance the range-wide western gray whale conservation plan.
The 2013 Kamchatka tagging effort would start in early July and focus on non-calf whales in good body condition, but not attempt to differentiate whales with specific sighting histories. Mate mentioned that the sponsors of the 2010 and 2011 tagging research in Sakhalin would likely remain engaged, but because the research will spread beyond their areas of immediate geographic interest, additional funding was being sought.
The IWC Scientific Committee had noted the importance of tagging off both Sakhalin and Kamchatka to provide information on stock structure and movements of gray wales in the North Pacific.
There was significant discussion by the Panel about whether tagging in Kamchatka was appropriate when the sample size of tagged Sakhalin whales was still small (only three individuals have been tracked outside the Sakhalin feeding area, although there have been several more documented movements from photo- and genetic-ID comparisons, see below) and there are outstanding questions to be answered by further tagging at Sakhalin. While the Panel agrees that working off Kamchatka could help to answer important questions, it nevertheless recommends that priority be given to at least one more tagging effort at Sakhalin in 2013. The Panel requests IUCN to investigate as a matter of urgency possible sources of funding for a 2013 summer programme. It also encourages Sakhalin Energy to provide some funding for such a programme.
5 BASIN-WIDE STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS
5.1 Photographs, genetics, satellite tracking Weller summarised information on the basin-wide study of individual movements of gray whales between the western and eastern North Pacific. Several comparisons of photo-ID catalogues have been completed while others are under way or still under discussion. The following list, compiled for the 2012 meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee (see IWC in press), provides an update on this project:
Russia-US Catalogue Comparison to Mexico catalogue complete through 2011 Comparison to Pacific Northwest (PNW) catalogue complete (see Weller et al. 2012) IBM Catalogue Comparison of Russia-US Sakhalin catalogue to Kamchatka catalogue complete Comparison to Mexico catalogue complete through 2008 15 unique Sakhalin whales (those not in Russia-US catalogue) submitted for comparison to Mexico catalogue 66 unique Kamchatka catalogue whales (excluding 84 that match to IBM Sakhalin) submitted for comparison to Mexico catalogue 15 unique Sakhalin whales (those not in the Russia-US catalogue) submitted for comparison to PNW catalogue
Page 20
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Comparison of 66 unique Kamchatka catalogue whales (excluding 84 that match to IBM Sakhalin) to PNW catalogue under discussion PNW Catalogue Comparison of Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) portion of PNW catalogue (~ 400 IDs) to sub-sample of Mexico catalogue under discussion Mexico Catalogue Update of catalogue to include 2012 images (~1000) and comparison to combined Sakhalin catalogue (7200 vs 220 IDs) pending Miscellaneous Comparisons to photographs obtained opportunistically from China and Japan (and elsewhere) are pending, partially complete or being discussed.
The Panel was pleased to learn the results of these comparisons and recommends that the additional matching as outlined above be undertaken.
During discussion, Broker reported that the comparison of the 66 Kamchatka whales to the PNW catalogue had not yet been contracted but that results should be available within the next six months.
5.2 Range-wide initiative It was noted that the June 2010 draft Western Gray Whale Conservation Plan on the WGWAP website3 is no longer fully up-to-date and therefore needs revision to reflect, in particular, the new information and recent discussions on population structure. Donovan emphasised that although the draft had been endorsed by both IUCN and the IWC, it was intended to be a ‘living document’ and it can and should be updated on a regular basis. Donovan also reported that efforts were under way to get formal approval and buy-in by all range states, now including Canada, the United States and Mexico, in the form of a memorandum of understanding. Valentin Ilyashenko, IWC Commissioner for the Russian Federation, has taken the lead in liaising with IWC Commissioners from the other range states, and has reported receiving positive responses so far. It is expected that much of the responsibility for updating and modifying the actions called for in the plan, and for funding and implementing them, will be assumed by range state representatives, where appropriate in conjunction with the IWC Scientific Committee and IUCN. Importantly, once the relevant IWC Commissioners have confirmed their support, the IWC can release funds to hire a plan Coordinator from its Conservation Management Plan Fund as part of its contribution to the joint IUCN- and IWC-endorsed plan. Weller and Brownell reported that they plan to visit China in the coming year to work with local scientists and search for historical and recent evidence of gray whales in the area where an adult female died in fishing gear in November 2011.
6 OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
6.1 Reports on site visits Dicks reported that he had made two visits to Sakhalin Island in May and July 2012 (for full report see document WGWAP 12/4). These were intended to fulfil the requirements of recommendation WGWAP 11/011, to attend two oil spill exercises (a Tier 3 Oil Spill Response (OSR) exercise for the Nogliki Oil Processing Facility (OPF) and a shoreline OSR exercise at the Piltun Lagoon mouth) and to review the status of OSR equipment stockpiles and response plans. The stockpiles at Sovetskoye Pipeline
3 https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wgw_conservation_plan.pdf
Page 21
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Maintenance Depot (PMD), Nogliki PMD and Prigorodnoye LNG were selected for inspection. During the visits Dicks contributed to two OSR workshops organised by Sakhalin Energy and held informal discussions related to wildlife response and outstanding WGWAP oil- and gas-related recommendations. The May visit was conducted jointly with Lenders’ representatives Frank Marcinkowski (PCCI) and Chris Halliwell (Environ). The July visit was conducted jointly with George Franklin (Shell International) and Victoria Broje (Shell Global Solutions). During the July visit, Dicks participated in a dedicated OSR workshop with Company representatives, Lender advisers, Government officials (EMERCOM) and the OSR response coordinator from Ecoshelf.
6.1.1 Nogliki Exercise This exercise was premised on a terrorist attack at the Nogliki OPF involving a vehicle that entered the site and breached a condensate storage tank. About 20 cubic metres of condensate (a light and highly volatile product) was spilled and three casualties resulted. The exercise was classed as Tier 3 because a terrorist attack would involve both local authorities at Nogliki OPF (Police and EMERCOM) and EMERCOM in the central command post in Yuzhno. Response equipment was deployed rapidly and effectively at Nogliki and operations at the two command centres were well organised and run. Overall, the exercise was conducted in a professional manner and Dicks summarised the basic sequence of events for the meeting. He identified a few areas where improvements might be made in future exercises. Firstly, all response personnel appeared to be aware of the details of the drill in advance, which undoubtedly contributed to its smooth running. This approach fails to throw in the unexpected challenges which real spills pose. Personnel and response arrangements are better tested and personnel learn and benefit more if advance knowledge is kept to a minimum and changes are deliberately introduced to the scenario as it develops, forcing responders to adjust. Dicks suggested that Sakhalin Energy should adopt this approach for at least some of its exercises each year. Secondly, EMERCOM was represented at the Yuzhno command centre but took no active part in directing or advising on the response. This made it impossible to assess the EMERCOM team’s spill response knowledge or the role that EMERCOM would play in a real spill. Dicks suggested that active participation by EMERCOM in a future Tier 3 exercise be encouraged, preferably in 2013. Two safety issues related to handling of recovered condensate at Nogliki were also identified. One concerned the need to foam-blanket recovered condensate in the temporary oil storage tanks, which was not done, and the other related to the use of vacuum trucks for transport of recovered oily waste. The vacuum units on the trucks are a potential ignition source, and should not be used with volatile and flammable products like condensate. These points have been reported to the response teams. The responders also failed to realise that spilled condensate may have escaped off-site through drainage channels, which should at least have been checked by off-site inspections.
A final important point with wider implications for spill response in general is that the exercise was terminated without considering final disposal of recovered oily waste, which often proves to be a bottleneck in real spills. Temporary storage was handled well during the response and it would have been beneficial for those involved to spend some time at least considering and/or developing final disposal options. Sakhalin Energy has a general overview of handling and disposing of such wastes (solid wastes to Smyrnyck and oily liquids to Prigorodnoye or private contractors), but details are not specified in the OSRPs and these arrangements have not been tested in a drill. Dicks noted the value of testing waste disposal arrangements in exercises so that they do not become a bottleneck in a real incident.
6.1.2 Piltun Exercise The shoreline exercise at Piltun was a repeat of one conducted in September 2011, with the aim of overcoming practical problems experienced in the earlier drill. Some observers for this exercise were housed in a camp which is normally used by wildlife monitoring teams, close to the exercise site at the Piltun lagoon mouth; others, in a specially provided camp at the spit. In spite of heavy rain and difficult road conditions just before the drill, all resources reached the site. Some of the response equipment was
Page 22
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
brought in by sea, which proved to be both quick and efficient. Dicks summarised the response activities, which were well organised. Booms, skimmers and temporary storage tanks were effectively deployed and maintained. Importantly at this location, potentially fragile access tracks to the site through the coastal sand dunes withstood the extra traffic. The exercise demonstrated that it was feasible to deploy booms, recover floating oil and carry out shoreline clean-up in this remote area, but also that strong tidal currents and wave action would render it unlikely that boom deployment would be able to completely prevent oil penetration to the lagoon. Dicks noted that effective spill response offshore would be beneficial in reducing the risk of lagoon oiling, which points towards the potential beneficial role of aerial application of dispersants in deeper waters offshore (see below). Opportunities missed by this exercise were to test the feasibility of deflection booming on the outer coast and to test the arrangements for waste disposal, e.g. by the deployment of trucks to the site to take away recovered oily wastes for final disposal. Dicks suggested that these items be included in a future shoreline exercise (not necessarily at Piltun). He also noted that in the case of a large spill, for which clean-up is often a prolonged affair, it is likely that Sakhalin Energy would need to obtain and manage considerable additional manpower and non-specialist resources such as trucks, diggers and support boats. It would be beneficial for such manpower and support equipment to be identified in advance and mobilisation tested in a Tier 3 exercise.
6.1.3 OSR Equipment Stockpiles Dicks briefly summarised the status of OSR stockpiles at Sovetskoye PMD, Nogliki PMD and the Prigorodnoye marine base. All were in good order. The equipment was being stored and maintained in good condition and the operational personnel appeared well trained and well versed in using and deploying the resources. Minor suggestions were made to the company regarding improvements to the packaging of some items for transport to spill sites. During the stockpile visits, it was noted that dispersant spray packs for deployment by helicopter, which had been held in the stockpiles, had been stood down. In their place was a sharing arrangement with ENL for three heli-spray units which ENL hold in its northern stockpiles. However, this arrangement has not been tested in an oil spill exercise and Dicks suggested that it would be useful to do this to confirm that the arrangement works within a reasonable timeframe. Sakhalin Energy pointed out that the two companies collaborate on exercises and work closely on all response issues. Evans noted that joint response arrangements with ENL to deploy helicopters and spill response equipment (but not the heli-spray buckets) had been tested and had worked well in a different context related to a marine drilling rig emergency about a year ago.
6.1.4 OSRPs Dicks briefly summarized his informal discussions with Sakhalin Energy regarding offshore OSRPs, which are currently being revised for re-submission to regulators. He was informed that the revisions were related to ‘worst case’ scenarios based on quantitative risk assessments and response contractor arrangements, and that they would not involve any changes to response techniques. Evans confirmed this to be the case and that the resubmission of the plans was likely to be in the first part of 2013. The Panel requests to see the final versions of the offshore plans once they are complete.
6.1.5 Discussion The wider discussion that followed Dicks’s presentation concerned the use of dispersant chemicals, in- situ burning and other response techniques and Sakhalin Energy’s Ice Response Manual. On the subject of dispersant use, Evans noted that the type of dispersant best suited to Vityaz crude oil has not yet been licensed in Russia, but that the Company was pursuing this issue with Russian authorities. Dicks expressed his view that dispersant use was an appropriate response technique provided that these chemicals were used in deeper waters away from the coast. This is consistent with the Panel’s position as stated in the WGWAP-3 report. Dispersant application would be most beneficial when these chemicals are applied promptly and as far away from the whale feeding grounds as possible. Potential delays to application because of current approval requirements by the authorities are seen as a weakness
Page 23
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
by the Panel and the Company. This could be resolved by efforts on the part of the Company to obtain pre-approval for their use. With regard to burning, Knizhnikov indicated that only about 4 or 5% of oil was cleared by this method during the Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Dicks agreed that burning cannot be viewed as a major response tool, although it may have limited application in the Sakhalin area under some circumstances. Evans pointed out that Macondo oil was less suited to in situ burning than Vityaz crude, which is light and likely to burn more effectively. Burning may be the only viable response in some winter ice-bound situations. Knizhnikov requested that Dicks share his impressions of the oil spill modelling mentioned on Sakhalin Energy’s website. Dicks responded that he had seen summaries of the modelling and understood that it had been used to prepare spill risk assessments as part of developing the OSRPs. Knizhnikov also raised the subject of a ‘response gap’, which Dicks explained was jargon for the time lag between a spill’s occurrence and getting response equipment on site and functioning. Knizhnikov explained his concern that there is potential for this gap to be unacceptably large, perhaps even days or weeks in fog, bad weather or winter conditions. Dicks agreed that this was possible but also noted it is a ‘fact of life’ faced by all countries in such emergencies. Knizhnikov asked whether Sakhalin Energy’s draft Ice Response Manual was publicly available. Evans said that it was still in development but early drafts had been reviewed by lenders (PCCI) and Dicks and that numerous comments had been taken on board. The final version should be available within six months. Evans was unsure if or to what extent it would be made public, but he indicated that the Company would share the final version with the Panel even if it was on a confidential basis. Knizhnikov noted that Dicks had included in his report a comment that the manual had greatly improved during revision, but Observers were not able to check this or comment themselves since the document itself remained confidential. This problem was not resolved during the meeting but the Panel acknowledged the difficult position in which the Observers find themselves. Finally, Knizhnikov informed the meeting that WWF had recently commissioned a review of spill response in the Barents Sea through independently contracted experts and he offered to provide the report to the Panel, which was welcomed. Reeves expressed the Panel’s appreciation to Dicks for his thorough and diligent work on the OSR issue and to Sakhalin Energy for supporting and facilitating the two site visits. He also acknowledged the valuable contributions by Observers over the years in bringing both information and specific concerns to the Panel’s attention.
6.2 Update on outstanding oil spill-related recommendations Dicks reported on three outstanding oil spill-related recommendations, as follows: 1) WGWAP 7/020: The status of this recommendation, which relates to the regular provision of information on Sakhalin Energy’s oil spill exercises, has been changed to ‘Closed, implemented satisfactorily but needs to be monitored regularly’ in line with discussions at WGWAP-11. Dicks noted he had already seen much of the 2012 drill-related material and had received additional drill reports from Evans at this meeting. Dicks will report back on these in due course. The company gave assurance that such documents would be provided routinely via IUCN for Panel review in advance of WGWAP meetings. 2) WGWAP 10/017: Status of Ice Response and other manuals, reported above. 3) WGWAP 11/011: Following Dicks’s attendance at the oil spill exercises and his inspection of selected OSR equipment stockpiles in 2012, he suggested, and the Panel agreed, that the status of recommendation WGWAP-11/011 should be changed to ‘Closed, implemented satisfactorily’. As a result of Dicks’s report and discussions at this meeting, the Panel recommends the following items related to oil spill exercises: a) A Tier 3 exercise involving a substantial spill of Vityaz crude should be
Page 24
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
conducted jointly with EMERCOM in 2013. This should include testing arrangements for obtaining additional manpower and equipment resources from outside the company’s own stockpiles, e.g. other oil companies or EMERCOM, and the deployment of ENL heli-spray units under the existing sharing agreement; b) A selection of pipeline, shoreline and offshore spill exercises should be conducted ‘blind’ or unannounced such that responders have no prior knowledge of the scenario; c) Selected exercises should cover the final disposal of recovered oily wastes (both solids and liquids) and the appropriate procedures for this should be included in OSRPs; and d) Deployment of deflection booms to protect a lagoon entrance should be tested on the shoreline in a drill in 2013.
6.3 Future work of Environmental Monitoring Task Force VanBlaricom briefly reviewed planned activities of the Environmental Monitoring Task Force (EMTF) in the next year with regard to benthic communities in the Piltun region. The Panel and Sakhalin Energy have had frequent, largely inconclusive discussions over a number of years about the possible ecological significance of Piltun Lagoon effluent waters to benthic productivity and gray whale distribution and abundance in the Piltun feeding area. A principal outcome of the December 2011 EMTF-1 meeting in Geneva was agreement to support a literature review on the question of ecological subsidies from marine lagoons to adjacent coastal ocean habitats with an emphasis on published information from the Piltun Lagoon region. VanBlaricom reported that no progress had been made on the literature review since EMTF-1 because of competing demands on his time. The literature review activity will be developed prior to the next WGWAP meeting, following the general approach outlined previously. Primary authors will be VanBlaricom, Tsidulko and Fadeev. Available relevant literature in Russian, Japanese, and English will be included in the review. Saksina separately confirmed availability of funds to pursue the review project, including support for necessary travel and translation services for the Japanese literature.
6.4 Harmful Algal Blooms Brownell and Weller had been tasked with reviewing the state of knowledge on harmful algal blooms (HABs) and domoic acid events in the western North Pacific (see recommendation WGWAP-11/004). They provided a literature summary derived primarily from English-language sources. There is a great deal of literature on HAB events around the world. Aetiology and diagnosis of cause- and-effect can be extremely challenging given that, for example, often the algae involved must reach threshold densities or a particular life stage before toxins are released into the environment, and different organisms become exposed and react to the various toxins in different ways. Algal toxins can disperse not only in the water column but also in air, and food-web transfer is a common means of exposure. It must not be assumed that just because marine mammals are air-breathing and highly mobile, they can avoid harmful exposure to HAB toxins. Among the best-known examples are about a dozen humpback whales that died in the eastern United States from consuming toxic fish and numerous incidents of domoic acid intoxication in California, mainly involving sea lions but also on at least one occasion a gray whale. In this context, it is noteworthy that a number of HAB events have produced significant mortality of highly mobile seabird populations in the north-eastern Pacific region. No fish die-offs were reported in association with a recent extensive red-tide incident in China. Also, there has been no reference to marine mammal die-offs associated with reported red-tide events in Japan’s Seto Inland Sea. A recent paper by Kim (2010) reports persistent HAB incidents in Korean coastal waters. Such incidents have increased in frequency, intensity and geographical range of occurrence in Russia over the past two decades. However, only one possible case of a die-off, involving birds, fish and (small) cetaceans has been reported, in July 1986 off eastern Kamchatka. The 15th International Congress on HABs was held in Korea in November 2012 and Brownell advised that papers from that conference, once available, could be relevant and should be checked. In discussion, Fadeev noted that algae known to produce harmful toxins have not been found in or near Piltun Lagoon and that the diet of gray whales in this area (mainly benthic amphipods) should reduce their risk of exposure even if a HAB were to occur there. However, some Panel members pointed out
Page 25
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
that the potential for exposure (e.g. via dispersal of a large bloom via currents or the atmosphere) could not be entirely ruled out and therefore there is reason for ongoing vigilance and monitoring. Fadeev has indicated at several recent WGWAP meetings that phytoplankton are the primary food source for the predominant benthic invertebrates in shallow water on the north-eastern Sakhalin shelf, which raises the possibility of exposure of western gray whales to HAB toxins by trophic pathways. Moreover, although western gray whales appear to feed primarily on benthic prey off Sakhalin, gray whales are well-known to be capable of adaptive feeding behaviour, including consumption of sand lance (also reported by Fadeev for the Sakhalin region) and mid-water zooplankton such as mysid swarms and decapod crustacean larvae (primarily observed off North America).
6.5 Stranding Detection and Response The Panel has a longstanding concern regarding detection, reporting and response to strandings of gray whales in the Russian Far East, particularly at Sakhalin where the whales occur in relatively high densities near shore and therefore are at risk of injurious encounters with vessels, fishing gear, spilled or leaked toxins, etc. A number of recommendations over the years have reflected this concern, and Sakhalin Energy has taken certain steps in response. For example, for several years, upon the Panel’s recommendation, the Company conducted dedicated flights during the open-water season along the north-eastern Sakhalin coast to search for carcasses (these were later suspended and are no longer conducted). Also in response to Panel recommendations, the Company facilitated translation of a whale necropsy manual4 and supplied ‘necropsy kits’ at three strategic locations in the region so that they would be available to local responders when strandings occur. Also, on the one occasion in recent times when a dead gray whale was found at Sakhalin (on 5 September 2009 a local hunter discovered the carcass of a dead stranded gray whale near Chaivo Lagoon), Sakhalin Energy and ENL made significant efforts to examine, photograph, measure and sample the animal under difficult circumstances. It was recognised by both companies that it is in their interest as well as those of all other stakeholders to determine cause of death as well as to obtain good photographs and tissue samples from any dead gray whales that are detected in the Russian Far East (as well as elsewhere in the range of western gray whales). Recommendation WGWAP-11/022 requests that Sakhalin Energy ‘seek explicit advance permission from the appropriate authorities to allow Company employees or contractors to carry out, promptly and without delay, a full examination (necropsy and sampling) of any dead whale found in north-eastern Sakhalin Island’. In its official response to that recommendation, Sakhalin Energy stated that Dicks had ‘discussed such opportunities during his visit on Sakhalin in May, 2012’ and the Company proposed ‘to come back to this recommendation’ once Dicks’s report has been presented and discussed at WGWAP- 12. Company representatives stated after the WGWAP-12 meeting that they see no reason to pursue this issue further. They believe sufficient information on carcass response plans and protocols has already been provided to the Panel in the Company’s Marine Mammal Protection Plan, in its responses to Panel recommendations and through explanations given by the Company at various meetings. Further, they regard stranding detection and response to be a ‘joint responsibility of Federal/Regional Authorities’, with companies operating in the region having no authority or responsibility to deal with strandings. The Company representatives suggested that instead of requesting any further effort on the part of Sakahalin Energy, the Panel should study Russian Federation legislation or send its own request for information or clarification to ‘the relevant Authority’. The Panel continues to feel that Sakhalin Energy and other companies operating on Sakhalin have a useful and appropriate role to play with regard to strandings. At a minimum, it is essential to (a) detect a stranding as quickly as possible and obtain good external photographs, especially showing any signs of external trauma or fishing gear on the whale, (b) collect a skin sample to confirm species identification and (c) report it immediately to the authorities. The collection of this material and information is critical
4 Available in Russian at: cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/necropcyguide_section_5_ru_ve_2.pdf
Page 26
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
because dead whales do not always stay on the beach where they first strand, especially during bad weather. Company employees and contractors may often be in the best position to respond quickly and efficiently. Companies may also be well placed to provide logistical support to authorities and thus facilitate thorough examination of the carcass (necropsy and sampling). It is in the best interest of the oil companies to be proactive regarding dead whales because in the absence of data, the general public, NGO’s and some authorities may assume that the companies’ activities have caused the death of the whale. This was demonstrated again recently (August 2012) when three dead belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) were observed between the villages of Rybnovsk and Rybnoye on the north-western coast of Sakhalin Island and local people suspected the deaths were somehow related to seismic surveys in the region.At WGWAP-12, the Panel briefly considered a proposal from Olga Sokolova and Tatyana Denisenko of the National Haematology Research Centre, Moscow, for development and implementation of a stranding network and necropsy/sampling programme for large whales in the Russian Far East, with emphasis on the north-eastern Sakhalin shelf region. As mentioned earlier, the Panel recognises the need for competent and rapid responses to detections of stranded whales. Because the proposal was only received on the first day of the meeting, there was insufficient time to consider it carefully. A key element of the proposal is participation by local organisations in the Russian Far East. This is obviously essential, and the proposal overall appears to be much improved over previous versions. However, given Sakhalin Energy’s lack of interest in participating in, or contributing to, a reporting and response system on Sakhalin Island (see above) and the general absence of integration between the investigators in Moscow (and the fact that they have little or no field experience with dead large whales) and people working on the ground in Sakhalin, the proposal as currently framed is unlikely to succeed.
7 NOISE ISSUES
Donovan, who chairs the Noise Task Force (NTF), reported on its third meeting that had been held immediately prior to WGWAP-12. The NTF had been formed at WGWAP-10 to replace the Seismic Survey Task Force. Its remit at the time was to:
1) Continue work on pulse noise issues, especially analyses of the results from the 2010 Astokh 4D seismic survey; provision of advice and recommendations on the planned summer 2012 2D (geotechnical) surveys;
2) Address broader noise-related issues, including specific noise-generating events or activities; continuous noise; chronic overall increase in noise on the Sakhalin Shelf.
Given the short space of time between NTF-3 and the Panel meeting, the full report, although largely complete apart from editorial changes (the conclusions and recommendations sections had been agreed by the NTF), was not available to this meeting. The final NTF-3 report will be posted on the IUCN website5. What follows here is Donovan’s summary of that meeting, the primary focus of which was to: (1) review progress and results of the analyses arising from the 4D seismic survey in 2010; (2) receive a report of the 2012 2D seismic survey and discuss plans for future analyses of the data; (3) review noise- related aspects of future activities (including an update on future seismic surveys); and (4) review the status of previous noise-related recommendations. Where the NTF-3 contributed to major items on the WGWAP agenda, the discussions and recommendations can be found under the relevant agenda items in the Panel report.
5 http://www.iucn.org/wgwap/wgwap/task_forces/noise_task_force/
Page 27
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
7.1 Review of past recommendations The NTF began its work by reviewing previous recommendations that did not fall under its major topics at NTF-3. The full text of the original recommendations can be found in the NTF-3 report and so they are not repeated in this summary. The objective of the agenda item was to provide guidance to IUCN when updating the recommendations table on the website. The NTF was concerned about the general issue of recommendations that had been agreed by consensus by a Task Force subsequently being rejected by the Company. This general topic and its resolution are discussed under Item 2.2 of the present Panel report. The two specific NTF cases are dealt with below.WGWAP-11/001: IUCN progress report on dealing with ‘continuous’ recommendations. This is discussed under Item 2.1 of the present Panel report.
7.1.1 WGWAP-11/003: review identified periods of loud noise This recommendation was one of those that had been initially rejected by the Company. After discussions among Sakhalin Energy members of the NTF and further consideration by the NTF itself, the NTF agreed to two reformulated and consolidated recommendations that do not alter the substance of the previous recommendations. These are given below. TEXT FOR CONSOLIDATED NEW RECOMMENDATION BASED ON RECOMMENDATION WGWAP-7/002 REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF REQUESTED ACOUSTIC DATA Objective To facilitate presentation of results to the Panel for specific acoustic data requests for specified tasks and time periods. Data requirements/analyses For any and all future requests for acoustic data, Sakhalin Energy will provide tabular data for fully calibrated 1-Hz bands, 1-minute averages for continuous noise and 3-second averages for impulsive noise in frequency bands specified in the request. Responsible persons Sakhalin Energy for ensuring the requested data are provided in the format described herein. Timeline Deadlines for providing the requested data in the specified format will be determined for each individual request.
TEXT FOR CONSOLIDATED NEW RECOMMENDATION BASED ON RECOMMENDATION WGWAP-11/003 REGARDING IDENTIFIED PERIODS OF LOUD NOISE Objective To investigate identified periods of loud noise within the feeding grounds in more detail with regard to both the activities underway and the acoustics data recorded. This investigation will attempt to (a) identify the cause(s) of the noise and (b) determine the extent (i.e., sound exposure) of the potential threat or disturbance, so that mitigation can be improved in the future, recognising that the sources of the loud noise are likely not Sakhalin Energy activities. Reporting/data requirements IUCN on behalf of the WGWAP will request the Regulator (MNR) to (1) provide the Panel with the Rosneft monitoring report for the period 18 August to 13 November 2010 and (2) authorise Sakhalin Energy to release the relevant acoustic data in the impulse noise format described in recommendation WGWAP-12/012, from the following acoustic buoys on the dates indicated: Buoys A10, Odoptu N10,
Page 28
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Odoptu-S-20 and Odoptu N20 for the periods 25-30 August, and 11-20 September; and Buoy OFA for the period 1-7 September 2010. Responsible Party/Parties IUCN, Panel and if MNR accedes to this request, Sakhalin Energy Target Completion Date IUCN will submit the request to MNR in Russian by 25 December 2012. Assuming the data are received in a timely fashion, the Panel will provide its report at least three weeks before WGWAP-13.
The NTF agreed that should these consolidated recommendations be adopted by the Panel, the table of recommendations would be amended accordingly, i.e. showing recommendations WGWAP-7/002 and WGWAP-11/003 to be superseded.
7.1.2 WGWAP-11/007: improved process for initial analysis of acoustic data This recommendation was also one of those that had been initially rejected by the Company. After discussions among Sakhalin Energy members of the NTF and further consideration by the NTF itself, the NTF agreed to a reformulated and consolidated recommendation that does not alter the substance of the previous recommendation. This is given below. TEXT FOR CONSOLIDATED NEW RECOMMENDATION BASED ON RECOMMENDATION WGWAP-11/007 Objective The submission of consistent and adequate summaries of data on temporal patterns of noise to the Panel for consideration in order to facilitate a more constructive and productive means of initial analysis and examination of acoustic data. It will also facilitate a timely analysis of specific acoustic events. Reporting/data requirements Recommendation WGWAP-12/012 specifies the need for the reporting of data on specific acoustic events at the request of the Panel on fine temporal (3-s for impulse noise; 1-min for continuous noise) and spectral (1-Hz band) scales. While data must be made available upon request on these fine scales for specific events, this is not a regular requirement for all sensors and all sampling periods. However, to expedite the release of ‘event’ data in a timely and efficient manner, it is strongly recommended that all raw acoustic data be pre-processed and archived as time-indexed frequency-resolved records through the computation of short-time (3 seconds) averaged spectrograms in fully calibrated 1-Hz bands. For each season, beginning with 2012, the following tabular and graphical summary representations of the acoustic data should be included in, or enclosed in digital format with, the annual reports. Specifically, each annual report would include for every recording station and all available data periods: * Tabular summaries in digital format of 30-min Leq levels in 1/3-octave bands between 10Hz and 10kHz (ANSI standard centre frequencies) * Graphs showing sequential 1-min Leq values for the 20Hz-2 kHz and 20 Hz-15 kHz passbands (presented chronologically with ~3 days data/graph) * Distinct spectrograms showing a) 1-min averages in the range 20Hz-2kHz on a linear frequency scale and b) 1-min averages in the range 20Hz-15kHz on a logarithmic frequency scale. For completeness and ease of reference, the 2-20 Hz frequency range could be shown on a common time axis alongside the 20Hz-15kHz logarithmic spectrograms, but should be segregated and rendered separately with an independent colour scale so as not to restrict the dynamic range of the >20 Hz data. Responsible Party/Parties The Company is responsible for ensuring the pre-processing and archiving of the acoustic data as recommended. It will provide the annual acoustic summaries to IUCN in a timely manner for
Page 29
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
TEXT FOR CONSOLIDATED NEW RECOMMENDATION BASED ON RECOMMENDATION WGWAP-11/007 consideration by the Panel at its meetings; IUCN is responsible for promptly making the summaries available to the Panel. Timeline The Company should submit a report annually through IUCN in document and/or digital form that contains the data as described above. Sakhalin Energy and IUCN will develop an efficient method to transfer and circulate this material to the Panel and/or Task Force members as appropriate.
Again, the NTF agreed that should this consolidated recommendation be adopted by the Panel, the table of recommendations would be amended accordingly, i.e. showing recommendation WGWAP-11/007 to be superseded.
7.1.3 WGWAP-11/006: activities document The objective of this general recommendation was to ensure that the Panel receives relevant information in a consistent format of planned ‘new’ activities by the Company, as well as any changes to ongoing activities well in advance of these becoming operational. The NTF focussed only on those aspects relevant to noise. The Company summarised the available information on future activities, noting that no new activities were planned that had not been reported at WGWAP-11. The primary issues of interest to the NTF related to seismic surveys (LUN-A and PA-B 4D – these are expected to take place in 2014 or later) and with analogue seabed surveys (bathymetry and side scan sonar). These are considered later in the present Panel report (Item 7.4). Activities related to the proposed South Piltun development are dealt with under Items 7.2 and 8.
7.1.4 Panel discussion and conclusions The Panel thanked the NTF for its work and endorsed its recommendations.
7.2 2012 2-D seismic (geotechnical) survey
7.2.1 Conduct of the survey The NTF received a slide presentation from the Company on the conduct of the 2012 survey (for details see the NTF-3 report). The NTF thanked the Company for the information and for its successful implementation of recommendation WGWAP-11/009 concerning the mitigation and monitoring plan (MMP). It was especially pleased that the survey had been completed by 8 July (the Panel had stressed the importance of finishing as early as possible and certainly before 15 July). It had agreed that it would be valuable for a written document or documents to be prepared summarising the different components of the work undertaken, including information on shut downs (including due to bad weather), times when the survey operated under reduced visibility, protocols used by the behavioural team etc. The Company indicated that this work was under way. Task Force discussion also focussed on plans for data analysis and presentation of the results. Although the sound source was considerably lower than for the 4-D survey, the NTF re-emphasised the relative lack of information on gray whale responses to noise and that analyses of the 2012 data may be useful for inter alia addressing the problem of exposure thresholds. It noted that the science of acoustic effects on behaviour is moving away from the concept of a step-function response. The Company presented an expected timetable of work, noting that it hoped results from integrated analyses would be available by the end of 2013. The Panel developed the following recommendation with respect to analysis of the behavioural data. Details of the recommended approach can be found in the NTF-3 report.
Page 30
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT ANALYSES OF BEHAVIOURAL OBSERVATIONS DURING THE 2012 2-D SEISMIC SURVEY Objective To undertake initial analyses of the behavioural observations collected during the 2012 2-D seismic survey consistent with previous analyses of similar data to provide an overview of the obtained results. This will enable the NTF to determine whether the data are sufficient to provide information on effects of received noise levels on gray whale behaviour during the survey. Data requirements/analyses During the 2-D seismic survey in 2012, behavioural observations yielded a total of 72 scans, 34 tracks, and a number of focal follows collected before, during and after seismic activity. It is recommended that for abundance/distribution scan sampling data, overall and pre/during/post seismic geographic plots are generated illustrating the whale locations and the 90th, 75th and 50th kernel distributions. The mean number of whales and pods per scan should be plotted as a function of date and in relation to periods of seismic activity including cumulative sound levels for the preceding 2 hours and 3 days as recorded at the 10 meter isobath in front of the acoustic station. For movement analyses, it is recommended that geographic plots be prepared illustrating all theodolite geographic positions for each whale track (so-called case studies). The estimated received sound energy levels should be illustrated in these figures along with a colour scheme of the whale speed on the trackline. In addition, the geographic display should include the seismic block and overall 156 db SEL acoustic footprint at maximum exposure when seismic activity was being conducted. Descriptive information on group size, confidence estimate, subject under observation, date/time of observation, duration of the track and observed behavioural states should accompany each figure. Additionally, several movement variables should be calculated for each track. The movement variables should be speed (km/hr), distance to shore (km), reorientation rate (degrees/min) and linearity/mean vector length. The dive-surface-respiration variables should be respiration interval, dive time, surface time, surface blow rate, and dive-surface blow rate. The effects of sound energy levels and behaviour states on these behavioural variables should be analysed using the same methodologies as for the 2010 4-D survey data. More details of these analyses are outlined in section 3.2 of the NTF-3 report. Responsible persons Sakhalin Energy (for ensuring the analyses are carried out, informing NTF members on progress, consulting with them on methods where appropriate and submitting written reports), NTF members (for providing verbal and written comments as appropriate through e-mail, teleconferences and meetings) and IUCN (for logistical support with document circulation, teleconferences and meetings). Timeline A written report containing all of the plots, description of methods, and analytical results should be prepared in time for presentation at NTF-4.
One particular matter that was raised was the question of the contribution of ‘boomers’ to the noise energy input during the survey. Although preliminary analyses had shown that the noise input would be dominated by the airguns, the modelling had not been carried out for the precise equipment used (details were not available at the time). The NTF developed the following recommendation to address this issue.
Page 31
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
RECOMMENDATION TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS OF THE 2012 SOUTH PILTUN 2-D SURVEY WITH RESPECT TO THE NON-AIRGUN LOW FREQUENCY SOURCES Objective To determine whether non-airgun low-frequency geoacoustic sources have similar acoustic characteristics to those of airguns (e.g., level, frequency spectrum) and thus could have similar impacts. Data requirements/analyses Obtain from the survey operators, to the extent possible, information about (a) which specific equipment was used, (b) time periods when low-frequency geoacoustic sources other than the airgun array were being used and (c) source vessel navigation data for those periods. Assuming these data are available, analyse individual pulses with the same method used for the airgun source and report pulse levels (peak SPL, rms SPL and per-pulse SEL) as a function of range from the source for a short segment (i.e., one shot line) of signals recorded near the closest point of approach (CPA) for each of the four available recording stations: (i) Molikpaq, (ii) Piltun-10, (iii) Piltun-20, (iv) Piltun-S. Responsible persons Sakhalin Energy for ensuring the analyses are carried out, informing NTF members on progress, consulting with them on methods where appropriate and submitting written reports, NTF members for providing verbal and written comment as appropriate through email, teleconferences and meetings, and IUCN for logistical support with document circulation, teleconferences and meetings. Timeline This represents a modest amount of work, so the deadline for completion of this task is 31 March 2013.
The NTF emphasised that the analyses for both recommendations should be undertaken by scientists familiar with the existing time series of acoustic and behavioural data. The Company informed the NTF that the acoustic data report for the 2012 seismic survey will be supplied to it in the newly agreed format for pulse noise (see consolidated recommendation above).
7.2.2 Panel discussion and conclusion The Panel welcomed the report of the NTF and endorsed its recommendations. A number of general points were raised in the discussion that will be considered in more detail when the written reports are received. These included: 1) 5-6 whales were observed in the area during the survey (also telemetry data showed that ‘Varvara’ had entered the Sakhalin area in mid-May) – most whales entered the area after the survey had been completed based on observations; 2) there was an agreement with ENL that data from its recorders (same standards and parameters) could be used in the case of equipment failure and although there were no recording problems, discussions are underway with ENL to include its data in the analyses; 3) information on the technical specifications of the boomer had become available since the completion of NTF-3.
7.3 Progress with analyses of data collected during the 4-D survey As the NTF and Panel have noted on several occasions, considerable effort and resources were expended by the Company and the Panel to design a comprehensive monitoring and mitigation
Page 32
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
programme for the 2010 4-D survey. Similarly considerable effort and resources were expended in implementing the programme in the field – an effort perhaps unparalleled in the world. These analyses are essential to improve future mitigation and monitoring. The relatively slow progress reported at NTF- 2 was not a criticism of the analysts but a reflection of the complexity of validating and preparing the data, determining appropriate metrics for key parameters and developing new integrative analytical methods. NTF-3 reviewed progress since NTF-2.
7.3.1 Noise cases The NTF received a progress report on the work on the noise cases presented at the last meeting that illustrated whale tracks and estimated received sound levels. It thanked the Company for this update and reiterated the value of these individual noise cases as a complementary source of information to the ‘population-level’ information provided by MVAs. The question of publication is discussed further below.
7.3.2 Behaviour MVA The NTF received a report from Gailey on the almost complete behaviour MVA. In summary, the provisional conclusions reached were: the analysis was unable to associate significant behavioural changes with sound generated by seismic or vessel activity; this may indicate that there were no large population-level behavioural reactions to the activity; it also may reflect success of the MMP; however, the final interpretation requires further power analyses; it should be remembered that the non-rejection of a null hypothesis of no effect does not necessarily mean there was no effect. The NTF thanked Gailey and his team for their thorough work, recognising that it is almost complete. It reiterated the need for further power analyses to assist in the final interpretation of the results for publication and developed the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION TO ASSIST INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE BEHAVIOUR MVA Objective Interpretation of the results of the behaviour MVA can be assisted by power analyses. This recommendation suggests which analyses are most valuable. Analyses Power analyses should be undertaken for each major dependent variable in terms of the power to detect a survey-related shift in the observed distribution of the variable. For example, a 10% upward shift in the speed distribution would mean that the median under exposure is the 60%-ile of the unexposed level. The estimates of power do not need to be precise. In addition, the following approach should be explored: (i) define criteria for a marked response; (ii) estimate the power of the data to detect a seismic-related change in the proportion of whales showing a marked response. Responsible persons Sakhalin Energy Timeline The work should be undertaken in an expeditious manner and incorporated into the final behaviour MVA paper and submitted to the NTF when completed prior to its next meeting.
Page 33
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
In addition, the NTF emphasised the value of exploring alternative testable hypotheses in future analyses of such data that involve plausible models of possible effects. This is a more generic and complex issue and would benefit from collaboration with scientists outside the Panel. To further this work, the NTF developed the following recommendation. RECOMMENDATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES FOR EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES Objective The formulation of alternative hypotheses that involve plausible models of possible effects. Approach Development of alternative response hypotheses should be undertaken on an exploratory basis. Only after response hypotheses have been clearly stated will it be possible to examine the feasibility of using available data to reject some or all of them. This is a generic issue, relevant not only to the Sakhalin case but more generally, and it is best investigated in a collaborative manner. Responsible persons Cooke will draft a short letter explaining the issue and it will be sent by IUCN to potentially interested scientists to determine their interest in assisting with the development of a set of ‘standard’ alternative hypotheses. Depending on the replies, Cooke will propose an approach/report to the next meeting of the NTF.
7.3.3 Distribution MVAs The NTF received a summary of results from a ‘distance-to-shore’ MVA and looked forward to receiving a written report at its next meeting that would allow the results and any implications to be thoroughly discussed. Work on the ‘density’ MVA is still at the stage of exploring appropriate methods. The power of the data to detect noise-related effects on distribution may be marginal and the challenge is to find an analysis method that extracts as much information from the data as possible. The Panel endorsed the recommendations of the NTF relating to this analysis.
7.3.4 Publication The NTF and the Panel have previously emphasised the importance of publishing the results of the 4-D survey given the extensive work that went into the MMP development, its implementation in the field and the analyses of the results. Broker reported that the draft of an overview paper was almost complete and that Gailey was hoping to complete a draft of the behaviour MVA by the end of this year. A paper is envisaged that incorporates the results of the two distribution MVAs as well as some related issues such as estimation of the PML. It was hoped that drafts would be ready for submission for publication by March 2013.
7.3.5 Panel discussion and recommendations The Panel welcomed the report of the NTF on these issues and endorsed its recommendations. There was a brief discussion on the MVA work described above in the context of the cumulative effects discussions (and the ‘integrated analyses’ referred to under Item 10.1 below). MVAs such as those by Gailey and colleagues are essentially looking at a single event (a multi-day seismic survey) in isolation. While such analyses are ‘cumulative’ to the extent that the animals have accumulated experience/exposure over their lifetimes, this is somewhat different to the integrated analyses that are attempting to look at these issues over time (i.e. the several years of data collection). Both approaches are important (and complex as noted under Item 10 below) for understanding and mitigating anthropogenic impacts, as are the insights gained from individual noise cases.
Page 34
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
7.4 Future 3-D/4-D surveys The Company reported that as previously advised to the Panel (WGWAP-11), there is potential for additional seismic surveys to be acquired in the period 2014-2016: one over the Northern Piltun-Astokh acreage and another over the Southern Lunskoye acreage. It focussed on the former in its report to the NTF. The Company expects further 3-D/4-D seismic acquisition between the years 2014-2016 and tentatively every 3-4 years thereafter to enable monitoring of hydrocarbon and water movement over the Piltun and Astokh fields. This builds on work commenced in 2010 with the Astokh 4-D acquisition and will be the first 4-D survey over the Piltun field. The total survey area will be up to 750 km2. Plans are presently at the formative stage but the Company wanted to brief the Panel in order to allow sufficient time to develop appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures. Further work is required to finalise the proposal. The Company noted that the seismic sources used for future surveys are likely to be comparable to those of 2010. However, there is a risk of not being able to complete the survey by mid- July (the primary mitigation measure) if the same vessel type and equipment are used as in 2010. The Company is investigating ways to improve efficiency over that realised in 2010. The NTF agreed that the proposed surveys for the 2014-2016 period should build on the experience gained during the development and practical implementation of the 2010 and 2012 seismic surveys and the analyses of the results of monitoring. Planning for the new major surveys should begin as soon as practical and follow the agreed steps developed for the 2010 survey, including the examination of distributional data, acoustic modelling and optimal survey design. The Company agreed to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available. Sufficient time must be allowed for the necessary iterative work to finalise an MMP, recognising that the 2010 MMP provides an important basis for this work.
7.4.1 Panel discussion and conclusions The Panel welcomed the discussions within the NTF and endorsed its conclusions. It stressed the importance of using experienced personnel, and expressed concern that this may be difficult given that the behavioural programme is now only activity-based. The Panel agreed that this issue should begin to be addressed now rather than waiting for MMP plans to be finalised for the 2014-2016 period. In response, Vladimirov noted that neither Gailey nor his experienced collaborator was available in 2012. There is only a limited pool of marine mammal scientists available in Russia and few of those have behavioural or even gray whale experience. For 2012, the Company brought in the best candidate (6 years of experience), who had worked with WWF, IFAW and the Russia-US team and used the same methods, software and protocols as Gailey. The Panel stressed the importance of asking Gailey and/or his collaborator to carefully review the 2012 experience to determine how successfully the existing protocols were implemented. It also recommends that a field-based training programme for behavioural observers should be developed and implemented well before the next seismic survey is planned.
7.5 Future work of the NTF The NTF identified a considerable amount of future work. This included: examination of loud noise periods; annual consideration of acoustic data; completion of 4-D and 2-D analyses; development of MMPs for future surveys; and cumulative effects. Recognising the difficulties involved and the problems of analyses taking longer than anticipated, the NTF emphasised the importance of the timely submission of documents by the Company or Panel members. For more complex matters, slide presentations should normally be seen as an effective
Page 35
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
supplement to, rather than a substitution for, documents. The NTF also re-emphasised its previous view of the need for IUCN to facilitate regular teleconferences.
7.6 Conclusions The Panel thanked Donovan and the NTF for their hard and productive work. It agreed that the NTF will need at least one additional meeting prior to the next WGWAP meeting. This is discussed further under Item 12.
8 UPDATE ON SOUTH PILTUN PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING As discussed in previous WGWAP reports, Sakhalin Energy is considering whether to go ahead with plans to construct a third offshore platform directly east of the mouth of Piltun Lagoon and between the two existing platforms, PA-A (Molikpaq) and PA-B. This is referred to as the South Piltun or PA-C platform. Evans explained that the Company is still studying how to recover the hydrocarbons in the “South Piltun” area under its Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) obligations to the Russian Federation and he provided the following summary for inclusion in this report. In 2012 Sakhalin Energy successfully completed the PA-C platform site survey (as well as relief well location surveys). This comprised: high resolution/ultra-high resolution seismic survey; analogue seabed survey operations; geotechnical survey operations.
The work was completed without any Health, Safety and Environment incidents. Seismic operations were completed before 15 July, as recommended by the WGWAP, and geotechnical operations were completed before the start of the storm season (end of September). The data acquired from this survey were interpreted in ‘real time’ and, as a consequence, Sakhalin Energy confirmed the suitability of what had been referred to in previous presentations to the WGWAP as the ‘blue location’. This location is further offshore than the previously preferred location and has the advantage that it is further away from the Piltun feeding area and closer to existing pipelines. Earlier concerns regarding shallow gas at the ‘blue location’ were not substantiated by the 2012 site survey. The presence of shallow faulting at the proposed location resulted in its being slightly optimised by moving it ~300m to the south-east. The project team is currently in the ‘select’ phase and no decision has been taken about the size, scope or feasibility of the Project. However, based on analyses completed to date, the emerging view of costs and volumes supports an integrated oil and gas development. If this logic is confirmed, the development of full processing facilities is likely. The timing is dependent on (a) ullage (space) in the production system and (b) commercial arrangements with customers. In parallel with the ongoing ‘select’ work, the project team is considering a possible appraisal well in summer 2014. This is driven by a desire to reduce the project’s large subsurface uncertainties. Appraisal may improve the downside risk outlook and lead to an enhanced understanding of the field. However, as it is likely that a significant degree of uncertainty will remain after appraisal, the decision of whether to drill an appraisal well is complex and multifaceted and will need to be made based on considerations across all Technical, Economic, Commercial, Organisational and Political aspects of the project. Future activities related to the project were to be discussed at a shareholders engagement meeting at the end of November 2012. This meeting had three key objectives, as follows: select the optimum concept; agree to/not to drill an appraisal well; align project pace/schedule.
Page 36
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Evans called attention to the fact that Sakhalin Energy, since the last WGWAP meeting, has fully adopted the 2012 World Bank/International Finance Corporation (WB/IFC) Standards. He also noted that the Company has ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14001certification for all facilities and in 2012 changed assessor and is now certified ISO14001 and OHAS180016. The Company is in the process of getting the LNG plant ISO 9001 certified. Hancox pointed out that the original Lender standard for Sakhalin II referred to the World Bank standards from the 1990s. Currently, the WB/IFC standards established in 2012 are the building blocks of all commercial bank standards and are in line with the Equator Principles (http://www.equator- principles.com/). There is no automatic grandfathering for existing projects and the previous version of the standards was not applied. Sakhalin Energy has voluntarily agreed to implement the second version of the standards, of which the most relevant in the present context are Standard 1 (General) and Standard 6 (Biodiversity)7. The Panel thanked Sakhalin Energy and Hancox for bringing this information to its attention, and looks forward to learning more about the 2012 WB/IFC standards at or prior to the next WGWAP meeting. During discussion, Evans explained that an appraisal well would involve bringing in a jack-up rig and drilling one or two wells in an open-water season. The purpose of the second well would be to take a core through the reservoir to obtain additional information on recoverability. Two tugs would be needed to bring the jack-up rig into and out of the drill area. Drilling of appraisal wells can be completed relatively quickly, in a matter of weeks. Evans gave assurance that the Company would notify IUCN as soon as a decision on appraisal drilling has been taken and that the Panel will have an opportunity to review the details and comment on the need for monitoring and mitigation. In response to a question of whether an extraction would be made for sampling purposes, Evans stated that there would likely be a production test for ‘producability’ and ‘reservoir boundary conditions’, requiring a matter of days to complete. In response to questions from Observers, Evans indicated that the shareholders engagement meeting scheduled for later in November would not result in a final investment decision, i.e. whether or not to install a South Piltun platform. Rather, it would consist primarily of addressing the three key objectives as outlined above. He also clarified that the Production Sharing Agreement does not commit the Company to another platform but rather obligates the Company to effectively recover hydrocarbons from the Sakhalin II licence area using existing technology. The Panel accepts the Company’s assurance that no final decision has yet been taken on whether, how or when to go ahead with construction of a South Piltun platform, or on the precise platform design and construction procedures. The Company presumably has not committed itself to a specific project design that would be hard to change. The Panel expects that before any irreversible decisions are taken, an in- depth assessment of the potential impacts on gray whales, including reference to critical habitat and cumulative impacts as required by the 2012 IFC Performance Standards (specifically numbers 1 and 6) will be undertaken in consultation with the Panel. In this regard, the Panel anticipates that the plans set out for inter-sessional and other engagement in 2013 will enable such consultation.
6 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification.htm 7http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/Topics_Ext_Content/IFC_External_Corporate_Site/IFC+Sustainability/Su stainability+Framework/Sustainability+Framework+-+2012/Performance+Standards+and+Guidance+Notes+2012/
Page 37
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
9 ACTIVITIES BY SAKHALIN ENERGY AND OTHER COMPANIES ON SAKHALIN SHELF IN 2012, 2013 AND BEYOND
9.1 2012 Sakhalin Energy’s activities in 2012 are summarised elsewhere in this report and no new information on activities of other companies was presented (except as mentioned in the following section). From a review prepared by IUCN, the Panel was given to understand that the first season of installation of ENL’s Berkut offshore platform, a large concrete gravity-based structure, in the Arkutun-Dagi field about 25 km offshore of Chaivo Lagoon, had taken place as planned in 2012 (see WGWAP-11 report, item 11.2). This work would have involved substantial continuous noise.
9.2 2013 and beyond Sakhalin Energy’s activities in 2013 and beyond were summarised by Evans and these are summarised in the NTF-3 report as well as discussed elsewhere in this report (Item 7.4). The WGWAP-11 report included the following summary, based on a presentation by IUCN: “Four oil and gas projects are approaching or in production mode on the eastern Sakhalin Shelf – Sakhalin I, II, III and V. Sakhalin I (ENL) and II (SEIC) are of greatest concern due to their proximity to the nearshore (Piltun) gray whale feeding area. However, adjacent projects are also important as gray whales are known to feed at least sporadically, for example, at the northern end of the island (Severnaya Bay) and south to nearshore waters off Chaivo Lagoon. Also, whales move often between the Piltun and Offshore feeding areas, the latter being partially within the Arkutun- Dagi Licence Area (Sakhalin I) and partially within the Veninsky Licence Area (Sakhalin III, Rosneft). It should also be noted that exploration is proceeding in other parts of the Okhotsk Sea shelf, notably Magadan and western Kamchatka (both areas used to some extent by gray whales historically).”
Saksina (IUCN) presented the information she was able to obtain from open sources on other Sakhalin projects in the general region of the gray whale feeding areas. The Panel inferred that installation of the topsides for the Berkut platform (Sakhalin I, see above) would occur in 2013. The main part of pipeline installation for this platform has been completed. The Panel emphasised that the Berkut platform is situated ~25 km from shore between the Offshore and Piltun feeding areas and that therefore activities at and around it have the potential to affect gray whale movements and access to food resources. This highlights the importance of continuing to monitor the whales’ use of the Offshore feeding area through vessel survey or other means. The Panel has had a longstanding concern about activities in the Lebedinsky block, which coincides with the very near-shore northern portion of the Piltun feeding area. Saksina reported that she was unable to find any updated information on the status of this block (Rosneft secured the licence to the Lebedinsky block in 2007). Nevenchina stated that Rosneft’s licence extends to the end of 2014. One of two planned appraisal wells was drilled last year. Rosneft is planning to produce a geodynamic model of the field (it is currently processing data from its 3-D seismic survey in 2010), finalise its estimate of reserves there and submit these for governmental review. To her knowledge, no further fieldwork in the Lebedinsky block is planned at this time. During discussion, the Panel stressed the need to have map resources available on the WGWAP website that could be used for reference when considering cumulative, aggregate or interactive effects from the various human activities in the region. Given the scale and extent of oil and gas activities, it would be helpful to have on the website a system whereby summaries of individual projects could be called up by clicking on an overview map. Saksina reported that she had access to a good overview map showing all nine project areas, with labels in English, and she promised to provide it to the Panel immediately after this meeting. Also during discussion, it was suggested that development of a strong, interactive, easy-to-
Page 38
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
update map component on the website should be a priority for Berzina once she assumes her position in the secretariat. As this work proceeds, she and Saksina should consult closely with Panel members for advice and guidance on what is needed. The Panel recommends that IUCN proceed quickly with this task and ensure that the map component is operational on the website no later than the end of February 2013. Knizhnikov, in offering once again to provide material from WWF on activities on the Sakhalin shelf, stressed the need for IUCN to have GIS capability in place and be prepared to receive and manage such material. He noted that Gazprom was planning a 3-year seismic survey programme in three areas, including East Odoptu, and WWF has detailed information (in Russian) that could be made available to the Panel but this requires translation work that should be undertaken right away rather than waiting until the next meeting. The Panel expressed its appreciation for this offer and recommends that IUCN provide the necessary support so that the information is made available to the Panel in a timely manner. Saksina reported that a proposed pipeline project to carry hydrocarbons from Sakhalin to Japan had been announced at the Sakhalin Oil and Gas Conference in September 2012 but no details with which to assess the implications for gray whales were available. Brownell reminded the Panel and other participants that they should not ignore developments south of Chaivo given the potential for impacts on whales that might be migrating north or south along the east coast of Sakhalin. There was some discussion of whether other companies operating in the region had adopted mitigation and monitoring practices similar or equivalent to those used by Sakhalin Energy for its recent seismic surveys. Yablokov and Vladimirov reported that this matter had been raised and discussed at the last meeting of the Interdepartmental Working Group but no real progress had been achieved. Yablokov and Knizhnikov stressed that the industry in Russia lacks the information sharing and coordinated action that are necessary to make serious progress towards assessment and management of cumulative effects. The Panel again emphasised the vital importance of getting better information on the activities of other companies that could affect western gray whales either directly (e.g. through ship strikes, contamination of the whales and their food resources) or indirectly (e.g. through noise exposure, other types of disturbance). This responsibility falls on all parties involved in the WGWAP process.
10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The subject of cumulative impacts has become a standing item on the WGWAP (and Noise Task Force) agenda and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future (see Item 12, below). A summary of discussions by the NTF can be found in the NTF-3 report and a recommendation is provided under agenda Item 10.2.
10.1 Progress on ‘Integrated Analysis’ Vladimirov presented an overview of methodology and approach to date on the ‘integrated analysis’ (also see WGWAP-11 report). The long-term goal of this work is to incorporate data on multiple categories (e.g. whale abundance and distribution, whale body condition, noise from vessels and seismic surveys, prey dynamics) into a statistically robust model capable of linking data on the dynamics of the whale population to explanatory variables. The initial phase of the investigation has focussed on relationships between the whale distribution and abundance data and the data on benthic prey populations within and among years. The discussions following Vladimirov’s presentation were supportive of this scientific effort to develop productive assessments of cumulative impacts of industry activities and the effects of natural processes on gray whales. The Panel recognised that the material presented by Vladimirov was only a first step in a challenging series of methodological developments and statistical analyses, and it complimented him and his colleagues for the substantial effort invested and insights gained thus far. Most Panel members had the view that initial challenges, although negative in a statistical sense, did not reflect any fundamental weakness in the approach. Overall, it was the Panel’s view that the primary challenge lies
Page 39
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
in the fact that data for the various categories have been collected across a broad range of spatial and temporal scales. The ultimate success of the integrative approach to assessment of cumulative impacts will depend on resolving scale-specific inconsistencies in relevant data sets. The Panel also encourages the investigators to consider some simplification of the approach to model development, particularly in the early, formative stages of the endeavour. As a hypothetical example, the investigators might consider analysing the associations of gray whale body condition in year x+1 with measures of benthic prey abundance in year x. This simplified initial approach may promote emergence of some positive statistical results as well as inform more comprehensive insights for model development. The Panel encourages continued work to develop the integrative approach to assessment of cumulative impacts. The Panel suggests evaluation of a range of both traditional and alternative (the latter as described under Item 10.2, below) modelling approaches in development of useful tools for this effort.
10.2 Population Consequences of Disturbance and related issues Nowacek provided a brief update on one current approach to assessing cumulative impacts. As described previously (WGWAP-11 report, sections 5, 10 and 11), the Population Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD) effort is ongoing and evolving (Harwood et al. 2011). PCoD is based on Bayesian methods, and the focus is on quantifying the influence of specific disturbance processes and events on the health and reproductive success of an animal population. The existing data on western gray whales could, theoretically, be brought into such a model along with information regarding potential disturbance factors such as noise or pollutants. During discussion the Panel raised a number of questions concerning the conceptual approach underlying PCoD, including influences of the volume of data available, effects of potential synergies among different sources of disturbance, problems with differences in temporal and spatial scales among disturbance sources, and the potential value of focussing on bioenergetic input variables. Also during discussion, Racca highlighted the importance of recognising that modelling of cumulative effects can include ‘attractor’ processes or events (e.g. positive environmental perturbations such as a rapid increase in food availability) as well as ‘negative’ disturbance processes such as intense noise or chemical pollution. In order to illustrate the range of approaches currently being pursued, he described several other initiatives in the general realm of assessment of cumulate impacts, as follows: 1) Cumulative Effects Working Group convened by the University of California, Santa Barbara, and funded by British Petroleum (BP). Several reports of this group are in preparation. One focuses primarily on the estimation of sound exposure, including the use of individual-based models for sampling the sound field, and on the effect of introducing avoidance reactions in such models. A second report involves a generalised infrastructure for cumulative effects estimation; 2) Sound Mapping and Cetacean Density Mapping groups (identified jointly as CetSound). These groups presented their initial results at a public workshop convened by NOAA in Washington, D.C in May 2012. At the workshop the Sound group discussed a number of maps of estimated aggregate/cumulative noise over various areas of the United States EEZ, providing information on the relative importance of different types of activities (e.g. vessel traffic and seismic surveys) on different temporal scales. The results for regions such as the Gulf of Mexico, where both vessel traffic and seismic survey noise can be nearly incessant, are particularly interesting. The relevant web site is http://cetsound.noaa.gov (some of the site’s data contents are still in preparation); 3) A paper (‘Mapping cumulative noise from shipping to inform marine spatial planning’ by Erbe et al.) was recently published in JASA Express Letters that presents results similar to the sound maps from the CetSound work, focussing on the Pacific EEZ of Canada (the coast of British Columbia including outlying islands). A PDF is posted at http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4758779. Nowacek drew attention to the ‘Mocha initiative’, which is evaluating responses to experimental exposure of animals to sound and attempting to develop relevant dose-response curves.
Page 40
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
The Panel emphasised the importance of incorporating information on the activities of other companies operating on the Sakhalin shelf, and not just Sakhalin Energy, when assessing disturbance that may contribute to cumulative impacts on western gray whales. Efforts to get such information are discussed elsewhere in this report (see Items 2 and 9 in particular) and as explained under Item 12 (below), the Panel intends to devote substantial time both inter-sessionally and at WGWAP-13 to participation in the design and implementation of a cumulative impact assessment. In this regard, the Panel welcomed the news that Sakhalin Energy has adopted the 2012 WB/IFC performance standards, which require the incorporation of such assessments in EIAs (see Item 8, above). The Panel emphasised the importance of ensuring that in the case of the proposed South Piltun project, cumulative impact assessment proceeds in a manner that will allow it to be considered in the relevant decision-making processes rather than after the fact.
The Panel noted that in the present (cumulative impacts) context, it was open to and could see some advantages in options that require activities (e.g. workshops) to be organised outside the WGWAP purview, e.g. by the IWC Scientific Committee and considering additional species/populations. A broader consideration of analytical techniques to consider cumulative effects could benefit from the extensive data set being accumulated for western gray whales while also improving the Panel’s ability to understand cumulative impacts on western gray whales.
The NTF had reiterated the increasing importance of this subject to its work and its ability to provide advice on anthropogenic noise effects off Sakhalin, whilst recognising the analytical complexities involved. The Panel endorsed the following recommendation developed by the NTF to enhance its ability to address this issue in the future.
RECOMMENDATION TO ASSIST CONSIDERATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES OFF SAKHALIN Objective To develop an agreed definition of ‘cumulative effects’ and related concepts for consideration at the next meeting of the Noise Task Force and to obtain relevant published and ‘grey’ literature on the topic from other areas that will assist in such considerations. Responsible persons Southall and Vedenev will co-ordinate the development of draft definitions for consideration, recognising the different concepts present in the literature. IUCN will co-ordinate with NTF members on collecting relevant published and grey literature including information on the work off West Greenland. Timeline The draft definitions will be submitted to the Task Force for comments by 31 January 2013. IUCN will collect the appropriate literature and make this available to Panel members at least one month before the next NTF meeting.
11 UPDATE ON POPULATION ASSESSMENT An update of the cross-matching of the Russia-US and IBM data sets including data through the 2011 season had been performed prior to WGWAP-12. As of the 2011 season, the two Sakhalin photo-ID catalogues contained a total of 222 whales, of which 186 were common to both catalogues, 17 were found only in the Russia-US catalogue and 19 only in the IBM catalogue. The new additions for 2011 included 16 calves of the year and 3 non-calf new whales. Of the 16 calves, 14 were recorded by both teams. Of the three non-calf new whales, two were recorded by both teams. There is a standing recommendation that the catalogue cross-matching be updated annually, and all parties have agreed that this should be continued.
Page 41
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
The latest population assessment for the Sakhalin feeding aggregation, presented at WGWAP-11, was based on Russia-US data collected in seasons 1995 through 2011. The population was estimated to have continued to increase and projected to reach 151 whales (90% CI: 132-166) in 2012, including 32 (90% CI: 18-36) breeding females. As reported by Bradford et al. (in review), the Russia-US data set now includes four cases where animals originally observed as calves, and hence of known age, have been observed with calves of their own. These suggest an age at first calving of around 9-10 years. This is useful new information for the population assessment, because in previous assessments this parameter had been merely guessed. A population assessment using the combined Russia-US and IBM data sets through 2011 is in preparation. Broker had submitted a revised version of the IBM data set prior to WGWAP-12 and he provided a further update immediately after WGWAP-12. Cooke reported that there are some features of the revised IBM data that cannot be accommodated in the assessment model as currently structured, such as females recorded as having calves, but where the identity of the calf is unclear. The model is being reworked to accommodate this type of observation. The model already allows for calves of the year observed without their mothers. In a conference call among Broker, Cooke and Reeves in July, it was agreed that data from Kamchatka would be included in the assessment on an exploratory basis using, in the first instance, only those whales that have also been recorded at Sakhalin. The model is currently being reworked to accommodate data collected at more than one location. This may raise issues of interpretation that can be discussed when the results are available. The Company expressed disappointment that, despite adjustments being made to the WGWAP-12 agenda, Cooke was unable to provide a final update on the population modelling incorporating the IBM team’s data. While also disappointed that this had not proved possible, the Panel noted that the work was complex and being conducted on a very limited time allocation. It stressed that the population assessment is a central element of the Panel’s work as it is the main basis for understanding the conservation status of the animals found off Sakhalin. It is therefore important that the results of the population assessment, when available, are reliable and definitive. The Panel believes that it would be appropriate to devote more resources to this in future, subject to budgetary constraints. The Panel encourages Cooke’s work to proceed as expeditiously as possible and looks forward to reviewing the results of the joint assessment as soon as it is feasible. The Panel recalls that the last joint assessment (Document WGWAP-8/09) yielded essentially the same results regardless of whether both data sets, or just the Russia-US data set, were used. However, a potentially important new factor for the current assessment is the inclusion of data from Kamchatka. It was stressed at WGWAP-12 that in any further discussions (e.g. teleconferences) of planned population assessments, representatives of both teams that are contributing data should be fully involved. It was agreed that the question of publishing an assessment based on data from both teams, as discussed at this and previous meetings, would be reconsidered once new results are available. For publication, it will be necessary to specify a definitive version of each data set, because most leading scientific journals now require submission and archiving of data. The Panel recommends that efforts to incorporate the data from both the IBM and Russia-US teams into an updated population assessment continue expeditiously, and looks forward to receiving results soon, barring any further unforeseen analytical problems. It was understood that the population assessment would apply to the Sakhalin feeding aggregation only. The wider issues of stock structure and the relationship of the Sakhalin aggregation to the gray whale population as a whole are being addressed in the context of the Pacific-wide collaborative study of gray whale migration patterns and stock structure being undertaken under the auspices of the IWC Scientific Committee (IWC in press; and see Item 5, above). There was some discussion of the issue of duplication of effort from having two photo-ID teams operating in much the same area, especially if the IBM photo-ID effort becomes purely (or primarily) shore-based from 2013, as envisaged in the Company’s new programme of work (see Item 3.5, above). The Panel recommends that the overlap of data be re-examined in the context of the population
Page 42
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
assessment, recognising that the last time this was examined, it appeared that the two teams’ data were largely complementary rather than duplicative. Sakhalin Energy reported that the IBM photo-ID programme now includes biopsy sampling of up to 20 whales each season. The Panel noted that the value of the biopsies collected by the Russia-US team had been greatly enhanced by linking each biopsy to individual identification photographs or video. This was true for all whales including those already in the Russia-US photo catalogue as well as any new non-calf whales encountered and calves of the year. In the case of calves of the year, it was particularly beneficial to also have photo records of their mothers at the time of sampling. In combination, these data have been very useful for the population assessment. The Panel was assured by Sakhalin Energy that appropriate field and laboratory procedures were in place for handling and analysing the biopsies and that the scientists working on this project with ENL had consulted with NOAA to ensure consistent methodology. The Panel recommends that, if biopsies are to continue to form part of the IBM data collection, measures are taken to ensure reliable linkages between biopsy samples and the photo-id catalogue. In cases where, despite those measures, a biopsy cannot be associated with an identified whale with certainty, this uncertainty should be reflected in the recorded data. The Panel further recommends that efforts be made to avoid biopsy sampling the same whales multiple times. Minimisation of duplicate biopsy sampling was achieved by the Russia-US programme in the past, but such minimisation relies to a large extent on the field workers’ ability to recognise individual whales in real time in the field. The Panel recognises that biopsy sampling is a field technique for collecting tissues that may be analysed in a number of different ways and for various purposes. It is therefore important when developing the field programme that objectives for analyses of the tissues be clearly identified and that appropriate sample sizes and tissue storage needs are determined in advance.
12 WGWAP WORKPLAN FOR 2013 AND OTHER BUSINESS
12.1 Next WGWAP Meeting After considerable discussion, it was provisionally agreed that WGWAP-13 would be in mid-May 2013, probably in Japan. Since Nowacek is unavailable at that time it is important that Brandon Southall attends as an Associated Scientist if at all possible. The Panel asked Saksina to approach him and seek to arrange this, at least provisionally. It was agreed that the agenda of the next WGWAP meeting should differ from that of past meetings. In addition to providing for brief updates on Joint Programme results from 2012, MVA and integrated analysis results, inter-sessional work by task forces and plans for satellite tagging in 2013, the agenda (and duration) of WGWAP-13 should explicitly allow for in-depth discussions of one or more major themes such as assessment of cumulative or aggregate impacts of Sakhalin shelf industrial development on the gray whale population, strategic planning for Sakhalin Energy’s future gray whale monitoring and research, and ways for the WGWAP experience to inform and upgrade industry-wide environmental standards. The Panel regretted the time pressure that surrounded WGWAP-12. This was exacerbated by the fact that the NTF meeting had occurred immediately beforehand, leaving only part of one day for the Task Force chair and others involved in drafting the report to complete their work. This is unreasonable not only for the Task Force itself but also for the non-Task Force members who have little or no time to digest the Task Force’s conclusions. In addition, few documents were provided for review in advance and much of the information to be considered was provided in the form of slide presentations. The result, especially given that the WGWAP meeting spanned only three days, was that the Panel and other participants had little opportunity for reflective, in-depth discussions. The Panel recognises that all parties involved share responsibility for late delivery or non-delivery of documents. Better planning,
Page 43
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
more rigorous adherence to procedures for providing material ahead of time, and more meeting time are all required to improve this situation.
12.2 Task Forces, Workshops, Other Options At present, the Noise Task Force is the only active task force and its anticipated activities in 2013 are discussed under Item 7.5. It is hoped that progress will also be made in 2013 by the Environmental Monitoring Task Force, as mentioned under Item 6.3. The Panel considered the possibility that one or more workshops or briefing sessions would be needed in 2013 in order to advance the subjects mentioned above as possible in-depth discussion topics at WGWAP-13 (and other future Panel meetings). These will require substantial preparation and coordination either through a task force process or by the formation of a steering committee to decide on scope, participants, agenda, data and documents, etc. For some activities or topics there may be good reasons to pursue a topic jointly with other organizations (e.g. IWC), companies and outside experts (i.e. beyond just Panel members). Specifically, the Panel recommends that IUCN, Sakhalin Energy representatives and the Panel Chair begin immediately after this report has been completed to plan inter- sessional work on the four major themes for in-depth discussion at WGWAP-13, namely IFC principles, cumulative/aggregate impacts, strategic planning for Sakhalin Energy’s future monitoring, and industry- wide outreach efforts.
12.3 Inter-sessional Engagement Both the Panel and Sakhalin Energy agreed that despite much resolve expressed at the last meeting (including a formal recommendation that ‘IUCN ensures that Noise Task Force teleconferences are organised on a regular basis’ – WGWAP-11/010), our collective performance on inter-sessional engagement had been poor. The pattern has been for engagement to intensify as a WGWAP meeting approaches, but then wane and become at best episodic until the time of the next meeting nears. This needs to change, and it can only do so if all parties make a sincere effort to at least communicate on a regular and more frequent basis. At times this may mean just letting the secretariat and/or the Chair know that an individual is unavailable for a given period of time, or that the scheduled completion of a document or a person’s ability to provide data has been delayed. It was suggested that IUCN work with Sakhalin Energy to develop and maintain (as a ‘living document’ subject to regular updating) a calendar of upcoming milestones or events that are of potential relevance to the WGWAP process. This would be a means of keeping the Panel apprised of when its input is expected, when documents or data are to be made available etc. Although all parties agreed to this approach, a caveat is that all involved must recognise and accept that dates are subject to change and a degree of flexibility is necessary. The Panel recommends that IUCN, in consultation with the Chair and with Sakhalin Energy officials, organise regular teleconferences (not less frequently than monthly and not more frequently than weekly) to track progress on items flagged for action in this and previous Panel reports. Such teleconferences should include relevant Panel members, follow a pre-defined agenda and emphasise planning and meeting preparation rather than try to address difficult substantive issues. The teleconferences should not be seen as substitutes for face-to-face meetings. IUCN should be responsible for producing and disseminating summaries of decisions and other outcomes of the teleconferences. Scheduling of such calls well in advance should enable participants to set aside dedicated time to this work rather than having to react to last-minute requests.
Page 44
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
13 REFERENCES Bradford, A.L, Weller, D.W., Lang, A.R., Tsidulko, G.A., Burdin, A.M. and Brownell, R.L., Jr. In review. Comparing Observations of Age at First Reproduction in Western Gray Whales to Estimates of Age at Sexual Maturity in Eastern Gray Whales. Marine Mammal Science. Harwood, J., Costa, D.P., Tyack, P.L. and Weise, M. 2011. A conceptual framework for evaluating the effects of sound on marine mammals. Paper presented to 96th meeting of the Ecological Society of America, 7-12 August, Austin, Texas.
IWC. in press. Report of the Scientific Committee. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 13 (Suppl.). Kato, H., Miyashita, T., Kishiro, T., Kanda, N., Tamura, T., Ishikawa, H., Ohike, T., Asai, Y., Yoshioka, M., Sakamoto, T. and Hiruma, S. 2012. Status report of conservation and researches on the western North Pacific gray whales in Japan, May 2011 –April 2012. Document SC/64/O8 submitted to Scientific Committee, International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.
Kim, H. G. 2010. An overview on the occurrences of harmful algal blooms (HABS) and mitigation strategies in Korean coastal waters. Pages 121-131, Coastal Environmental and Ecosystem Issues of the East China Sea, A. Ishimatsu and H.-J. Lie, (editors), TERRAPUB and Nagasaki University
Meschersky, I.G., Kuleshova, M.A., Litovka, D.I., Burkanov, V.N., Andrews, R.D., Tsidulko, G.A., Ilyashenko, V.Yu. and Rozhnov, V.V. 2012. Mitochondrial lines composition of gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Russian Far Eastern seas: the control region and protein-coding fragments. Pp. 445-450 in Marine Mammals of the Holarctic: Collection of Scientific Papers after the Seventh International Conference, Suzdal, Russia, 24-28 September 2012.
Page 45
14 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 12TH MEETING OF WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date ITEM 2: UPDATES
WGWAP- Item 2.2 Objective Task Force If a 12/001 Task Force recommendations are agreed by members, recommend- all members (Panel and Company alike) and Sakhalin dation is to be proposed to the Panel. In the unlikely event Energy, rejected, in that a recommendation of this kind is adopted by IUCN whole or in the Panel but then rejected by the Company, part, the the objective here is to provide a clear Company will mechanism that allows difficulties to be notify IUCN addressed as soon as possible. as soon as Approach possible and Great care must be taken by Task Forces in IUCN will drafting recommendations to ensure that if contact the rejection occurs it is not due to legal or Chair of the administrative problems with wording. Task Panel. Force recommendations that are adopted without change by the Panel will be clearly identified in the Panel’s report. If despite this, the Company decides to reject such a recommendation, notification of the rejection should occur in a separate e-mail message from the Company to IUCN, along with a clear explanation of the rationale. IUCN should immediately bring this to the attention of the WGWAP Chair and, where appropriate, the relevant Task Force chair(s) WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date to enable prompt follow-up action to try to remedy the situation as soon as possible. WGWAP- Item 2.6 Minutes summarising the positions expressed IUCN As soon as 12/002 by members at IWG meetings are published possible but by MNR. The Panel requests that IUCN no later than obtain and distribute to all Panel members WGWAP-13 English translations of the minutes of recent and future IWG meetings.
ITEM 3: REPORTS ON FIELD ACTIVITIES IN 2011 (NOT INCLUDING SOUTH PILTUN SITE SURVEY WORK)
WGWAP- Item 3.3 [...] the Panel is concerned that the benthic Sakhalin WGWAP-13 12/003 data collected in 2011 may not be Energy compatible, in a statistical context, with benthic data collected in previous years, and that changes in sampling effort and methods in 2011 may have caused a perturbation of unknown magnitude in the time series of benthic assemblage data for western gray whale feeding areas. The Panel requests clarification regarding the intentions of Fadeev and colleagues to apply necessary correction factors to the 2011 data, and to explain methods for statistical estimation of the required correction factors including associated error terms.
WGWAP- Item 3.3 The Panel requests that Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin WGWAP-13 12/004 provide clarification of how decisions to Energy
Page 47
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date sample or not to sample the benthos in an area such as Chaivo are made.
WGWAP- Item 3.4 [...] the Panel requests that Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin Prior to NTF- 12/005 provide a description of its activities around Energy 4 the PA-B platform at the times in question [specified periods in August and September 2011] for discussion at the next meeting of the Noise Task Force.
ITEM 4: SATELLITE TAGGING
WGWAP- Item 4.2 The Panel ... recommends that a[n] Sakhalin WGWAP-13 12/006 assessment of follow-up photographs of Energy whales satellite-tagged off Sakhalin in 2010 and 2011 be conducted by the IBM team and results presented at the next meeting.
WGWAP- Item 4.2 Given those observations, and in particular Mate WGWAP-13 12/007 the finding of necrosis and cavitation of underlying muscle, it is clear that simple assessments of external wound healing … are inadequate to fully assess the potential health impacts resulting from tag attachment. Mate assured the Panel that these issues had been discussed in the past and would be considered further during an upcoming Page 48
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date meeting on sperm whale tagging. The Panel looks forward to reviewing information from that meeting and requests that Mate provide a summary for consideration at the next WGWAP meeting.
WGWAP- Item 4.3 While the Panel agrees that working off IUCN, First quarter 12/008 Kamchatka could help to answer important Sakhalin of 2013 questions, it nevertheless recommends that Energy priority be given to at least one more tagging effort at Sakhalin in 2013. The Panel requests IUCN to investigate as a matter of urgency possible sources of funding for a 2013 summer programme.
ITEM 5: BASIN-WIDE STUDY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS
WGWAP- Item 5.1 Several comparisons of photo-ID catalogues Various data WGWAP-13 12/009 have been completed while others are holders, with underway or still under discussion. The report back following list, compiled for the 2012 by Weller on meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee behalf of (see IWC in press), provides an update on IWC this project: Scientific Committee Russia-US Catalogue Comparison to Mexico catalogue complete through 2011 Comparison to Pacific Northwest (PNW) catalogue complete (see
Page 49
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date Weller et al. 2012)
IBM Catalogue Comparison of Russia-US Sakhalin catalogue to Kamchatka catalogue complete Comparison to Mexico catalogue complete through 2008 15 unique Sakhalin whales (those not in Russia-US catalogue) submitted for comparison to Mexico catalogue 66 unique Kamchatka catalogue whales (excluding 84 that match to IBM Sakhalin) submitted for comparison to Mexico catalogue 15 unique Sakhalin whales (those not in the Russia-US catalogue) submitted for comparison to PNW catalogue Comparison of 66 unique Kamchatka catalogue whales (excluding 84 that match to IBM Sakhalin) to PNW catalogue under discussion PNW Catalogue Comparison of Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) portion of PNW catalogue (~ 400 IDs) to sub-sample of Mexico catalogue under discussion Mexico Catalogue Update of catalogue to include 2012 Page 50
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date images (~1000) and comparison to combined Sakhalin catalogue (7200 vs 220 IDs) pending Miscellaneous Comparisons to photographs obtained opportunistically from China and Japan (and elsewhere) are pending, partially complete or being discussed.
The Panel was pleased to learn the results of these comparisons and recommends that the additional matching as outlined above be undertaken.
ITEM 6: OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
WGWAP- Item 6.1 The Panel requests to see the final versions Sakhalin As soon as 12/010 of the offshore [OSR] plans once they are Energy feasible complete.
WGWAP- Item 6.2 As a result of Dicks’s report and discussions Sakhalin 2013 12/011 at this meeting, the Panel recommends the Energy following items related to oil spill exercises: a) A Tier 3 exercise involving a substantial spill of Vityaz crude should be conducted jointly with EMERCOM in 2013. This should include testing arrangements for obtaining additional manpower and equipment resources from outside the
Page 51
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date company’s own stockpiles, e.g. other oil companies or EMERCOM, and the deployment of ENL heli-spray units under the existing sharing agreement; b) A selection of pipeline, shoreline and offshore spill exercises should be conducted ‘blind’ or unannounced such that responders have no prior knowledge of the scenario; c) Selected exercises should cover the final disposal of recovered oily wastes (both solids and liquids) and the appropriate procedures for this should be included in OSRPs; and d) Deployment of deflection booms to protect a lagoon entrance should be tested on the shoreline in a drill in 2013.
Page 52
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date
ITEM 7: NOISE ISSUES
WGWAP- Item 7.1 Objective Sakhalin Deadlines for 12/012 To facilitate presentation of results to the Energy for providing the Panel for specific acoustic data requests for ensuring the requested data specified tasks and time periods. requested in the Data requirements/analyses data are specified For any and all future requests for acoustic provided in format will be data, Sakhalin Energy will provide tabular the format determined for data for fully calibrated 1-Hz bands, 1- described each minute averages for continuous noise and 3- herein. individual second averages for impulsive noise in request. frequency bands specified in the request.
WGWAP- Item 7.1 Objective IUCN, Panel IUCN will 12/013 To investigate identified periods of loud and if MNR submit the noise within the feeding grounds in more accedes to request to detail with regard to both the activities this request, MNR in underway and the acoustics data recorded. Sakhalin Russian by 25 This investigation will attempt to (a) identify Energy December the cause(s) of the noise and (b) determine 2012. the extent (i.e., sound exposure) of the Assuming the potential threat or disturbance, so that data are mitigation can be improved in the future, received in a recognising that the sources of the loud noise timely are likely not Sakhalin Energy activities. fashion, the Reporting/data requirements Panel will IUCN on behalf of the WGWAP will request provide its the Regulator (MNR) to (1) provide the Panel report at least with the Rosneft monitoring report for the 3 weeks Page 53
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date period 18 August to 13 November 2010 and before (2) authorise Sakhalin Energy to release the WGWAP-13. relevant acoustic data in the impulse noise format described in recommendation WGWAP-12/012, from the following acoustic buoys on the dates indicated: Buoys A10, Odoptu N10, Odoptu-S-20 and Odoptu N20 for the periods 25-30 August, and 11-20 September; and Buoy OFA for the period 1-7 September 2010. WGWAP- Item 7.1 Objective Sakhalin Sakhalin 12/014 The submission of consistent and adequate Energy is Energy summaries of data on temporal patterns of responsible should submit noise to the Panel for consideration in order for ensuring a report to facilitate a more constructive and the pre- annually productive means of initial analysis and processing through examination of acoustic data. It will also and IUCN in facilitate a timely analysis of specific archiving of document acoustic events. the acoustic and/or digital Reporting/data requirements data as form that Recommendation WGWAP-12/012 specifies recommende contains the the need for the reporting of data on specific d. It will data as acoustic events at the request of the Panel on provide the described fine temporal (3-s for impulse noise; 1-min annual above. for continuous noise) and spectral (1-Hz acoustic Sakhalin band) scales. While data must be made summaries to Energy and available upon request on these fine scales IUCN in a IUCN will for specific events, this is not a regular timely develop an requirement for all sensors and all sampling manner for efficient periods. However, to expedite the release of consideration method to ‘event’ data in a timely and efficient manner, by the Panel transfer and
Page 54
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date it is strongly recommended that all raw at its circulate this acoustic data be pre-processed and archived meetings; material to the as time-indexed frequency-resolved records IUCN is Panel and/or through the computation of short-time (3 responsible Task Force seconds) averaged spectrograms in fully for promptly members as calibrated 1-Hz bands. making the appropriate. For each season, beginning with 2012, the summaries following tabular and graphical summary available to representations of the acoustic data should be the Panel. included in, or enclosed in digital format with, the annual reports. Specifically, each annual report would include for every recording station and all available data periods: * Tabular summaries in digital format of 30- min Leq levels in 1/3-octave bands between 10Hz and 10kHz (ANSI standard centre frequencies) * Graphs showing sequential 1-min Leq values for the 20Hz-2 kHz and 20 Hz-15 kHz passbands (presented chronologically with ~3 days data/graph) * Distinct spectrograms showing a) 1-min averages in the range 20Hz-2kHz on a linear frequency scale and b) 1-min averages in the range 20Hz-15kHz on a logarithmic frequency scale. For completeness and ease of reference, the 2-20 Hz frequency range could be shown on a common time axis alongside the 20Hz-15kHz logarithmic spectrograms, but should be segregated and
Page 55
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date rendered separately with an independent colour scale so as not to restrict the dynamic range of the >20 Hz data.
WGWAP- Item Objective Sakhalin A written 12/015 7.2.1. To undertake initial analyses of the Energy (for report behavioural observations collected during the ensuring the containing all 2012 2-D seismic survey consistent with analyses are of the plots, previous analyses of similar data to provide carried out, description of an overview of the obtained results. This will informing methods, and enable the NTF to determine whether the NTF analytical data are sufficient to provide information on members on results should effects of received noise levels on gray whale progress, be prepared in behaviour during the survey. consulting time for Data requirements/analyses with them on presentation at During the 2-D seismic survey in 2012, methods NTF-4. behavioural observations yielded a total of 72 where scans, 34 tracks, and a number of focal appropriate follows collected before, during and after and seismic activity. submitting It is recommended that for written abundance/distribution scan sampling data, reports), overall and pre/during/post seismic NTF geographic plots are generated illustrating the members (for whale locations and the 90th, 75th and 50th providing kernel distributions. verbal and The mean number of whales and pods per written scan should be plotted as a function of date comments as and in relation to periods of seismic activity appropriate including cumulative sound levels for the through e- preceding 2 hours and 3 days as recorded at mail, Page 56
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date the 10 meter isobath in front of the acoustic teleconferenc station. es and For movement analyses, it is recommended meetings) that geographic plots be prepared illustrating and IUCN all theodolite geographic positions for each (for logistical whale track (so-called case studies). The support with estimated received sound energy levels document should be illustrated in these figures along circulation, with a colour scheme of the whale speed on teleconferenc the trackline. In addition, the geographic es and display should include the seismic block and meetings). overall 156 db SEL acoustic footprint at maximum exposure when seismic activity was being conducted. Descriptive information on group size, confidence estimate, subject under observation, date/time of observation, duration of the track, and observed behavioural states should accompany each figure. Additionally, several movement variables should be calculated for each track. The movement variables should be speed (km/hr), distance to shore (km), reorientation rate (degrees/min) and linearity/mean vector length. The dive-surface-respiration variables should be respiration interval, dive time, surface time, surface blow rate, and dive- surface blow rate. The effects of sound energy levels and behaviour states on these behavioural variables should be analysed using the same methodologies as fir the 2010
Page 57
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date 4-D survey data. More details of these analyses are outlined in section 3.2 of the NTF-3 report.
WGWAP- Item Objective Sakhalin 31 March 2013 12/016 7.2.1. To determine whether non-airgun low- Energy for frequency geoacoustic sources have similar ensuring the acoustic characteristics to those of airguns analyses are (e.g., level, frequency spectrum) and thus carried out, could have similar impacts. informing Data requirements/analyses NTF Obtain from the survey operators, to the members on extent possible, information about (a) which progress, specific equipment was used, (b) time consulting periods when low-frequency geoacoustic with them on sources other than the airgun array were methods being used and (c) source vessel navigation where data for those periods. appropriate Assuming these data are available, analyse and individual pulses with the same method used submitting for the airgun source and report pulse levels written (peak SPL, rms SPL and per-pulse SEL) as a reports, NTF function of range from the source for a short members for segment (i.e., one shot line) of signals providing recorded near the closest point of approach verbal and (CPA) for each of the four available written recording stations: (i) Molikpaq, (ii) Piltun- comment as 10, (iii) Piltun-20, (iv) Piltun-S. appropriate through email, teleconferenc
Page 58
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date es and meetings, and IUCN for logistical support with document circulation, teleconferenc es and meetings.
WGWAP- Item Objective Sakhalin The work 12/017 7.3.2. Interpretation of the results of the behaviour Energy should be MVA can be assisted by power analyses. undertaken in This recommendation suggests which an expeditious analyses are most valuable. manner and Analyses incorporated Power analyses should be undertaken for into the final each major dependent variable in terms of the behaviour power to detect a survey-related shift in the MVA paper observed distribution of the variable. For and submitted example, a 10% upward shift in the speed to the NTF distribution would mean that the median when under exposure is the 60%-ile of the completed unexposed level. The estimates of power do prior to its not need to be precise. next meeting. In addition the following approach should be explored: (i) define criteria for a marked response; (ii) estimate the power of the data to detect a seismic-related change in the proportion of whales showing a marked
Page 59
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date response.
WGWAP- Item Objective Cooke will Prior to NTF- 12/018 7.3.2. The formulation of alternative hypotheses draft a 4 that involve plausible models of possible short letter effects. explaining Approach the issue Development of alternative response and it will hypotheses should be undertaken on an be by exploratory basis. Only after response IUCN to hypotheses have been clearly stated will it be potentially possible to examine the feasibility of using interested available data to reject some or all of them. scientists to This is a generic issue, relevant not only to determine the Sakhalin case but more generally, and it their is best investigated in a collaborative manner. interest in assisting with the developme nt of a set of ‘standard’ alternative hypotheses. Depending on the replies, Cooke will propose an approach/re port to the
Page 60
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date next meeting of the NTF.
WGWAP- Item The Panel stressed the importance of Sakhalin Before the 12/019 7.4.1. asking Gailey and/or his collaborator to Energy next seismic carefully review the 2012 experience to survey is determine how successfully the existing planned protocols were implemented. It also recommends that a field-based training programme for behavioural observers should be developed and implemented well before the next seismic survey is planned.
ITEM 9: ACTIVITIES BY SAKHALIN ENERGY AND OTHER COMPANIES ON SAKHALIN SHELF IN 2012, 2013 AND BEYOND
WGWAP- Item 9.2 [...] during discussion, it was suggested that IUCN 1 March 2013 12/020 development of a strong, interactive, easy-to- update map component on the website should be a priority for Berzina once she assumes her position in the secretariat. As this work proceeds, she and Saksina should consult closely with Panel members for advice and
Page 61
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date guidance on what is needed. The Panel recommends that IUCN proceed quickly with this task and ensure that the map component is operational on the website no later than the end of February 2013. WGWAP- Item 9.2 Knizhnikov, in offering once again to IUCN WGWAP-13 12/021 provide material from WWF on activities on the Sakhalin shelf, stressed the need for IUCN to have GIS capability in place and be prepared to receive and manage such material. [...] The Panel expressed its appreciation for this offer and recommends that IUCN provide the necessary support so that the information is made available to the Panel in a timely manner.
ITEM 10: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
WGWAP- Item 10.2 Objective Southall and The draft 12/022 To develop an agreed definition of Vedenev will definitions ‘cumulative effects’ and related concepts for co-ordinate will be consideration at the next meeting of the the submitted to Noise Task Force and to obtain relevant development the Noise published and ‘grey’ literature on the topic of draft Task Force for from other areas that will assist in such definitions comments by considerations. for 31 January consideration 2013. IUCN , recognising will collect the the different appropriate concepts literature and Page 62
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date present in the make this literature. available to IUCN will Panel co-ordinate members at with NTF least one members on month before collecting NTF-4. relevant published and grey literature including information on the work off West Greenland
ITEM 11: UPDATE ON POPULATION ASSESSMENT
WGWAP- Item 11. The Panel recommends that efforts to Broker, WGWAP-13 12/023 incorporate the data from both the IBM and Cooke Russia-US teams into an updated population assessment continue expeditiously, and looks forward to receiving results soon, barring any further unforeseen analytical problems.
WGWAP- Item 11. There was some discussion of the issue of [To be WGWAP-13 12/024 duplication of effort from having two photo- clarified; ID teams operating in much the same area, may require especially if the IBM photo-ID effort reconvening becomes purely (or primarily) shore-based of Photo-ID
Page 63
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date from 2013, as envisaged in the Company’s Task Force] new programme of work…. The Panel recommends that the overlap of data be re- examined in the context of the population assessment, recognising that the last time this was examined, it appeared that the two teams’ data were largely complementary rather than duplicative.
WGWAP- Item 11. The Panel recommends that, if biopsies are Sakhalin On-going 12/025 to continue to form part of the IBM data Energy collection, measures are taken to ensure reliable linkages between biopsy samples and the photo-id catalogue. In cases where, despite those measures, a biopsy cannot be associated with an identified whale with certainty, this uncertainty should be reflected in the recorded data. WGWAP- Item 11. The Panel further recommends that efforts Sakhalin On-going 12/026 be made to avoid biopsy sampling the same Energy whales multiple times. Minimisation of duplicate biopsy sampling was achieved by the Russia-US programme in the past, but such minimisation relies to a large extent on the field workers’ ability to recognise individual whales in real time in the field.
Page 64
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date
ITEM 12: WGWAP WORKPLAN FOR 2013 AND OTHER BUSINESS
WGWAP- Item 12 The Panel recommends that IUCN, Sakhalin IUCN, First quarter of 12/027 Energy representatives and the Panel Chair Sakhalin 2013 begin immediately after this report has been Energy and completed to plan inter-sessional work on the the Panel four major themes for in-depth discussion at Chair WGWAP-13, namely IFC principles, cumulative/aggregate impacts, strategic planning for Sakhalin Energy’s future monitoring, and industry-wide outreach efforts.
WGWAP- Item 12 The Panel recommends that IUCN, in IUCN On-going 12/028 consultation with the Chair and with Sakhalin Energy officials, organise regular teleconferences (not less frequently than monthly and not more frequently than weekly) to track progress on items flagged for action in this and previous Panel reports. Such teleconferences should include relevant Panel members, follow a pre-defined agenda and emphasise planning and meeting preparation rather than try to address difficult substantive issues. The teleconferences should not be seen as substitutes for face-to- face meetings. IUCN should be responsible for producing and disseminating summaries of decisions and other outcomes of the
Page 65
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Recommendation Cross- WGWAP Recommendations & Requests Responsible Target Sakhalin Energy Response Number Reference Party/ Completion Parties Date teleconferences. Scheduling of such calls well in advance should enable participants to set aside dedicated time to this work rather than having to react to last-minute requests.
Page 66
ANNEX 1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Panel Members Present Robert L. BROWNELL Jr. Justin G. COOKE Senior Scientist Centre for Ecosystem Management Studies Southwest Fisheries Science Center Höllenbergstr. 7 National Marine Fisheries Service 79312 Emmendingen 1352 Lighthouse Ave. Germany Pacific Grove, CA 93950 USA
Brian DICKS Greg DONOVAN 7 High Street Head of Science Hadleigh IP7 5AH International Whaling Commission Suffolk The Red House, 135 Station Road UK Impington, Cambridge CB24 9NP UK
Douglas P. NOWACEK Randall R. REEVES (Chairman) Duke University Okapi Wildlife Associates Nicholas School of the Environment & 27 Chandler Lane Pratt School of Engineering Hudson 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd. Québec J0P 1H0 Beaufort, NC 28516 Canada USA
Grigory TSIDULKO Glenn R. VANBLARICOM A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution US Geological Survey Russian Academy of Sciences Washington Coop. Fish & Wildl. Res. Unit Leninsky prospect, 33 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences Moscow, 119071 Fishery Sciences Building, Rm. 116 Russia 1122 NE Boat Street Seattle, Washington 98105 USA
Alexander I. VEDENEV David WELLER Head of Noise in Ocean Laboratory Protected Resources Division PP Shirshov Institute of Oceanology Southwest Fisheries Science Center Russian Academy of Sciences National Marine Fisheries Service Nakhimovskiy Ave, 36 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Moscow 117997 Administration Russia 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive La Jolla, CA 92037 USA Alexey V. YABLOKOV Councillor Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky prospect, 33, office 319 Moscow 119071 Russia
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. Koen BROKER Alexander RUTENKO Mike DONAGHY Olga TYURNEVA Richard EVANS Alexey VLADIMIROV Valeriy FADEEV Thomas ZENGERLY Roberto RACCA
IUCN Tatiana SAKSINA Anete BERZINA Sarah HUMPHREY (Rapporteur) Dennis KJELLQVIST
Other Observers Elena NEVENCHINA, Sakhalin Ministry of Hyun Woo KIM Nature Resources Hawsun SOHN, Cetacean Research Institute, National Fisheries Research & Development Institute, Korea Olivier PAUWELS, NC Production Operations Company B.V.
Observer NGOs Naoko FUNAHASHI , IFAW Japan Alexey KNIZHNIKOV, WWF Russia Anna FILIPPOVA, IFAW-RU Doug NORLEN, Pacific Environment
Observer Lenders Jonathan HANCOX, ENVIRON Masako OKADA, Mizuho Bruce Mate, ENVIRON Haruhiko TAKAHASHI, SMBC
Interpreters Alexander DANILOV Grigory SHKALIKOV
Page 68
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
ANNEX 2. FINAL MEETING AGENDA
WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL 05-07 November 2012 12th meeting Busan, South Korea
WGWAP-12 AGENDA and TIME SCHEDULE
05 November (Monday) Documents
09:00 – 09:20 1. Opening of 12th WGWAP meeting
1.1 Introductions and logistics 1.2 Adoption of agenda 1.3 Documents 1.4 Report drafting procedures and timeline
09:20 – 10:30 2. Updates
2.1 Outstanding business from previous meetings incl. status of recommendations [Reeves]
2.2. Website [Saksina]
2.3. IUCN personnel, code of conduct etc. [Saksina]
2.4 Overview of SEIC activities since WGWAP-11 (Feb 2012) [Evans/Vladimirov]
2.5 IWC, IWG, WCC workshop, Suzdal roundtable, other [Various]
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee break
10:45 – 12:30 3. Reports on field activities in 2011 (not including South Piltun site survey work) 3.1 Photo-identification [SEIC] 3.2 Distribution [SEIC] 3.3 Benthic [SEIC] 3.4 Acoustics [SEIC/Rutenko] 3.5 Future of joint programme [Evans/Vladimirov]
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break
13:30 – 14:15 4. Satellite tagging
4.1 Varvara results [Mate/Tsidulko] 4.2 Consideration of photos of tagged whales [Mate/Weller] 4.3 Future plans [Mate/Others]
Page 69
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
14:15 – 15:00 5. Basin-wide study of individual movements: photographs, genetics, satellite tracking [Weller]; range-wide initiative [Reeves/Donovan]
15:00 Adjourn
06 November (Tuesday) Documents
09:00 – 10:30 6. Oil spill response and environmental monitoring
6.1 Reports on site visits [Dicks] 6.2 Update on outstanding oil spill-related recommendations [Dicks] 6.3 Future work of EMTF [VanBlaricom/Dicks/Tsidulko] 10:30 – 10:45 Coffee break
10:45 – 12:30 7. Noise issues
7.1 Summary from SEIC on South Piltun site survey Summer 2012 [Vladimirov/Davey] 7.2 Report (provisional) of NTF-3 meeting [Donovan]
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break
13:30 – 15:00 Noise (continued) 7.3 Update on other Noise recommendations [Nowacek/Vedenev/Donovan] 7.4 Future work of NTF [Donovan/SEIC] 15:00 Adjourn
U07 November (Wednesday) Documents
09:00 – 10:30 8. Update on South Piltun planning and decision-making [SEIC]
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee break
10:45 – 11:30 9. Activities by SEIC and other companies on Sakhalin Shelf in 2012, 2013 and beyond
9.1 2012 [IUCN/Others] 9.2 2013 and beyond [IUCN/Others]
11:30 – 12:30 10. Cumulative impacts
10.1 Progress on ‘Integrated Analysis’ [Vladimirov] 10.2 PCAD etc. [Various]
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch break
13:30 – 14:00 10. Update on population assessment [Cooke]
Page 70
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
14:00 – 15:00 11. WGWAP work plan for 2013 and other business [Reeves/Others]
15:00 Adjourn
Page 71
WGWAP-12 Report of the twelfth meeting of the WGWAP
ANNEX 3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT TITLE STATUS NUMBER
WGWAP-12/1 Provisional agenda (including time schedule) (English) Public
WGWAP-12/2 Provisional agenda (including time schedule) (Russian) Public List of documents distributed in connection with the 12th WGWAP-12/3 Public meeting of the WGWAP Review of Sakhalin Energy’s Oil Spill Response WGWAP-12/4 Arrangements 2012, Summary of findings from site visits to Public
Sakhalin Island, May and July 2012 by Brian Dicks
WGWAP-12/5 Rules of Procedure for WGWAP meetings Public Western gray whale research and monitoring program in WGWAP-12/6 2011, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Vol I. Background and Public
Methods (English) Western gray whale research and monitoring program in WGWAP-12/7 2011, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Vol I. Background and Public
Methods (Russian) Western gray whale research and monitoring program in WGWAP-12/8 2011, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Vol. II. Results and Discussion Public
(English) Western gray whale research and monitoring program in WGWAP-12/9 2011, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Vol. II. Results and Discussion Public
(Russian) Acoustics and hydro physical survey on the north-eastern WGWAP-12/10 shelf of Sakhalin Island, August 1 – October 5, 2011 Public
(Russian)
WGWAP-12/11 Oil and Gas Development on the Sakhalin Shelf in 2012 and Public
beyond Extracts from the IWC64 Scientific Committee report relevant WGWAP-12/Inf.1 Public to the WGWAP Movements of gray whales between the western and eastern WGWAP-12/Inf.2 Public North Pacific by D. Weller Rope trauma, sedation, disentanglement, and monitoring-tag WGWAP-12/Inf.3 associated lesions in a terminally entangled North Atlantic Public
right whale by M. Moore
Page 72